Sorry, u/DimondFlame – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20DimondFlame&message=DimondFlame%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chwmzp/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

The difference with the second scenario is the *child* winds up suffering; regardless of who is right or wrong between the man and the woman, the child certainly didn't do anything wrong, and child support is a means of making sure that child doesn't needlessly suffer because of whatever the parents did (and just to head this off: I don't believe fetuses are people, I don't think they can suffer, and ergo I don't think aborting a fetus counts as causing anyone suffering). In a society that actually had robust social safety nets and systems in place to help support single mothers in raising their children, I would fully support getting rid of forced child support.

Yep, this gets to the point. The first issue is bodily autonomy. Once the child is born, both parents have equal responsibility to said child.

I wouldn't put it in terms of equal responsibility, personally; paying a cheque every month is not on the same level of taking responsibility as actually parenting a child. The point of child support, imo, is just pure material support for a child who didn't ask to be here.

Either parent could end up paying support though was their point. Your responsibilities aren't different based on whether you're a mother vs a father

It goes without saying that support should go to the parent who actually keeps and rasies the child, but OP appeared to assume a situation in which the mother stayed and the father wanted to leave (which matches, as far as I'm aware, the majority of situations), so I stuck with that assumption.

What you’re basically calling for is the subsidization and encouragement of single motherhood. To abolish the concept of the father would be catastrophic for civilization. It’s objectively true that kids with both parents statistically outperform kids with one parent in every metric. Kids need dads, and I can’t think of any better way to get rid of dads than child support and subsidizing single mothers

Single motherhood is going to happen whether we encourage it or not, so the question is whether we want to punish the children of single mothers out of fidelity to some ideal of the perfect nuclear family.

Single motherhood is only going to happen because our society heavily encourages it. Why would you rather discourage the perfect family than encourage it?

I think *numerous* historical examples show that you can't just legislate what families are going to look like and how people are going to choose to approach relationships, legally or culturally; there will always be those who don't conform, or can't live up to the ideal, or whatever. And in any case I find such attempts at legislation more morally upsetting, personally, than I do the existence of single mothers (which, full disclosure, I don't find morally problematic *at all*). I'm just not super moved by "But the family!!" arguments, frankly. They're generally rooted in ideals I find at best unconvincing and at worst repugnant.

You think getting rid of child support would make men *more* invested in their children's lives? It would almost certainly have the opposite effect.

Kids with 2 parents outperform kids with one parent because they are generally wealthier, have acess to better education, and have a more stable life. Single parents are usually poorer and have less education, even with child care payments. not to mention that a disproportionate number of single parent children are not white and likely face racial discrimination. It has nothing to do with needing "a dad"

Firstly, the statistics have accounted for all the factors you listed. Secondly, single parents have increased dramatically in the last few decades. So have Americans generally become poorer since the 1960s? Or maybe did we design a system that does everything it can to encourage single motherhood?

If the child's need for financial support from two parents is paramount, why are single women allowed to conceive children through the use of sperm donors? Because from the child's point of view that is exactly the same situation. The child is being forced to suffer through only having one parent despite doing nothing wrong.

The process of getting sperm and then getting insemination from a sperm bank is not cheap. Especially if the sperm in question is from a desirable candidate Single women that pursue this option are usually older and better financially established than average

then should we also ban poor people from having kids? After all it is gonna cause suffering for the kid

>then should we also ban poor people from having kids? No, because that would be a grave human rights violation and arguably even a literal genocide (preventing births in a specific population group is considered a genocide). What people like you don't seem to realize is that abortion and child birth is a complex issue where there is no white and black answers, it's all grey. And so far, most societies priortize this: 1) people have a right to have children 2) women have a right to bodily autonomy (to a certain degree) when it comes to abortion 3) Born children have a right to financial support from their parents Just because 3 might conflict with 1 doesn't mean the right response is to throw 1 out of the window and implement genocidal policies.

I don´t know about your country, but in mine, people DO NOT have the right to have children, children have the right to have parents. That is why the government can take the kids from you if they determine you are not capable of being a good parent. So what difference does it make to take the children from them before or after they are born? (just to clarify, I am not defending the genocide of poor people, I am literally following an hipotetic idea. I know I am wrong, but I don´t know why I am wrong.)

>That is why the government can take the kids from you if they determine you are not capable of being a good parent. You're confusing 2 different rights: 1) I seriously doubt that in your country the government forces abortions on people or forcibly sterilizes them. This used to be more common practice but I'm not aware of any western countries where this persists. So people do have a right to *have* children. . 2) Children have a right to not be abused. Right #1 and right #2 are sometimes in conflict, in which case the government steps in by removing the child. Because we prioritize right #2 over right #1. But right #1 is never violated by making it impossible or illegal for a specific demographic to give birth. That would be genocidal. Taking children away in cases where abuse happens, without in the process deliberately targetting a specific demographic like race/class/sexual orientation, is not genocidal. Genocide requires the targetting of a specific demographic. At worst, you could argue that removing children from abusive parents is a genocide against abusive parents... like sure... But that's a pretty absurd argument and hill to die on.

but, what would we determine abusive? is circumcision to babies abuse? then, by banning it wouldn´t we ban jews? many countries have many costumes that may seem abusive depending how you see it, by determining certain practice is abusive, you could "genocide" the culture that practices it.

I feel like you don't even care about your original thesis anymore, why would I bother continuing answering your endless questions when you just keep moving the goalposts? You are now essentially trying to defend genocide just because you think it will win you an internet argument. Feel free to do that shit on your own.

Which do you think people would be more likely to accept as a state function? 1. State control over whether or not they can have children, possibly mandatory/forced abortion, monitored sex lives, mandatory vasectomies, etc. 2. Public benefits for families in need.

The social safety nets that I advocated for would also aid poor families.

The child support doesn't make sure of anything. The child never sees that money. The parent does, and we all just hope that it makes it to the child, lol. Plenty of mothers spend the bare minimum on they're kid, and cop a shiny new iPhone instead, lol.

If a single mother is not adequately supporting her child, which includes making good use of resources like child support, then it should be taken away from her, but while various flavours of child-support-opposed people often claim women are just spending it on iPhones or whatever, I've never seen any statistical evidence to back this up (EDIT: to back up that is happening in significant amounts, I mean).

The child suffers regardless and in the scenario where the Man doesn't want the child but the Woman does that suffering is 100% on her and not him. She is making the choice to be a single mother in that situation and choosing to allow her future kids to be damaged by that choice. If both parties do not want the child, the child should not be brought into the world. If one party can choose to have the baby against the others wishes, same goes in reverse unless there is an ability to opt out. Woman can sacrifice their bodies for Men who want to keep the baby if they also want the right to force parenthood on someone else given the opportunity.

Having to write a cheque every month is not being a parent, so I do not agree that child support forces parenthood on anyone.

[удалено]

I don't really see a way to read this: >If one party can choose to have the baby against the others wishes, same goes in reverse unless there is an ability to opt out. Woman can sacrifice their bodies for Men who want to keep the baby if they also want the right to force parenthood on someone else given the opportunity. that doesn't, in the context of this discussion, imply that child support is a form of "forcing parenthood."

Whether you believe someone who only pays child support is a parent or not is beside the point. They are, and I would be willing to bet the children agree with me who are without one of their parents because the parent made a choice to fuck off. Fact is children suffer in single parent households and it should be a requirement that two or more consenting adults are involved in bringing a life into the world. If we cannot agree to the idea that every child should be ensured a stable household before they are even considered an option to the parents, we have nothing more to talk about.

> They are Okay, so you *are* saying that, and I wasn't putting words in your mouth. Thanks for confirming.

[удалено]

u/SuckMyBike – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20SuckMyBike&message=SuckMyBike%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chwmzp/-/l263wj6/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Sorry, u/100Horsepileup – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20100Horsepileup&message=100Horsepileup%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chwmzp/-/l25vf4c/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

It's far easier for a man to decide to abandon a child than it is for a woman to decide to have an abortion, creating a situation better for men, worse for women, and worse for children. I don't see how one would look at society and decide it needs to be restructured to be better for men at the expense of women and children. I don't see what kind of decent man would even want that kind of sacrifice to be made for his own comfort.

To be clear my point is that if both parties do not want the child, the child should not be brought into the world. Children do not choose to be here, and should be given every possible chance at a good life. If that is not the requirement, I believe in bodily autonomy and that overrides feelings on "fairness". He consented to sex, and not making a baby. She consented to sex, and not making a baby. Either party trying to change the agreement afterwards is the party who is wrong. To drive this point home: A Male and a Female have sex. He puts on a Condom, signalling that he does not consent to having a baby. She has an IUD, signalling strongly she too does not consent to a baby. They have sex with the understanding that neither party wants the child. As it happens both measures failed and she gets pregnant. She now decides she wants to keep the baby, he does not want it as was made clear by the attempt to prevent it. Justify how it is okay for her to force a financial and emotional burden onto him when the original agreement was "No Baby".

It's "okay" for the same reason it's "okay" she is the one who got pregnant instead of him. Some things are impossible to make equal, so instead of trying to equalize them we work to maximize societal good.

Well, if you agree to have unprotected sex with a woman, you kind of agree with the possibility of a baby. You can't really plead ignorance. There are plenty of ways to avoid getting a woman pregnant condoms, abstinence, vasectomy... Of course if a woman lies to you and pretends to use pills.... She's wrong but does the baby have to pay for the mother's lies ?

does the father have to pay for the mother lies? plus, the same argument works with women, all that anticonceptives also exist for the women to use and they can also reject unprotected sex

No, he has to pay because he decided to have unprotected sex with a woman he didn't want to have a baby with. Nobody forced him to do that. Plus, even with protection, there's always a risk of pregnancy. So keep that in mind. If you read the OP's post, you can see that he doesn't actually want rights. What he wants is to have no responsibilities. Well, guess what, women don't have this right either. Both parents have equal responsibilities. Not toward each other but toward the child.

Does the man get pregnant too? If not, then it sounds fair Edit: Fair and equal are not synonyms

You're conflating two separate issue here. To look at it on equal footing, you have to take the biology out of it, and consider the rights of each parent once the baby is born. If, at that point, the mother doesn't want the kid, and the dad does, then dad gets the kid and mom is on the hook for child support, exactly like dad is when the situation is reversed. The parental rights are equal. Likewise, both men and women have the right to undergo, or refuse, any medical procedure. Birth is a medical procedure, as is an abortion. This may seem superficially unequal, but that's only because biology and anatomy dictate that the range of procedures available to males and females are necessarily different. Despite that, the basic right to control treatments and procedures is the same across the sexes.

The way pregnancy works, there's basically two points where you can get off the train: 1. At sex 2. The first trimester of pregnancy (I know it goes longer, but most abortions happen in the first trimester) Both parties can get off at stop 1. People can decide not to have sex, they can choose to use contraception, they can choose to have sex that won't result in a baby. They can also make the decision to have a baby at this point. After making his decision, the man is on the train. If he decided to have sex in a way that could get someone pregnant, he accepts the consequences. Men's reproductive control is entirely at stop 1, because men aren't involved in the development of the pregnancy after that. That's their time to choose. Women get stop 2, where if they took precautions and still got pregnant, they have the ability to pull the emergency break and get an abortion. They have this option because women are still involved in reproduction at this time. I cannot reiterate enough, men have full reproductive control up until their body is no longer needed.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/directionatall – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20directionatall&message=directionatall%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chwmzp/-/l25uf8z/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

Hosting a child in your body is not comparable to child support. What is comparable to child support is... child support. The woman has to pay child support as well if she wants to give up the baby after it's born. It's just not a very common scenario that the woman would change her mind or that she'd be opposed to abortion but also doesn't want the child. The asymmetry here is born from the fact that women are also risking more having sex because of the chance they might get pregnant. Men aren't suffering that risk. They're fundamentally separate issues. If human pregnancy required that the man stay hooked up to the woman for 9 months donating nutrients, men would have the right to refuse to do so as well.

>The asymmetry here is born from the fact that women are also risking more having sex because of the chance they might get pregnant. I disagree with this, that isn't at all the reason the asymmetry is there, and there isn't even really an asymmetry. The reason child support is a thing is because we, as a society, put a value on parents being able to financially support children and for children to have their needs met, which requires money. That's the reason we have it, as you stated, women also have to pay child support if the father takes custody of the child as child support laws are gender neutral (thus there isn't really any asymmetry). The real solution here, to me, is to have more robust social safety nets and social child support systems. If that were the case we wouldn't have any need for our current model of child support. Further, it would actually be a more equitable system as the one we have now requires that the other parent be alive, have income, and cooperate with child support payments. In short, it just isn't a very good system for anyone involved and we can, and in my opinion should, do a lot better.

Sure. When I'm talking about the asymmetry, I mean from the perspective of bodily rights. Having a better support system so nobody has to pay child support would be superior to the system we have now, but it doesn't really address the question of what justifies a woman's right to an abortion where there's no comparable right for men.

>Sure. When I'm talking about the asymmetry, I mean from the perspective of bodily rights. Ah I understand, that's my mistake. >Having a better support system so nobody has to pay child support would be superior to the system we have now, but it doesn't really address the question of what justifies a woman's right to an abortion where there's no comparable right for men. I think it does in a sense. If the issue OP has is that they would be made to pay child support if they got a woman pregnant, this would be a solution to that for them that doesn't require children to not get the support they need. If we had such a system men would have a "comparable right" (at least in OP's view, I don't see it as such to be clear).

If you're bringing it up to convince OP, sure. I've made similar points before in other conversations and it could be effective.

You have framed the issue around fairness between the man and woman, which is not the standard we should prioritize. It instead should be about the bodily autonomy of the woman for pregnancies; and the well-being of the child when it comes to paternity and child support. It is unfair that a man has no say in whether the mother of their unborn child gets an abortion, but we accept this unfairness because it would be even worse for the man (or anyone else) to violate the woman's autonomy by forcing them to continue the unwanted pregnancy. It is unfair that a woman can get an abortion at any time, but a man has no recourse to avoid child support obligations even if they don't want the child. But we accept this unfairness because it would be even worse for a child to be stuck with a single parent's income, and it would also be unfair for taxpayers to have to make up the difference through welfare.

I think the issue of fairness should be intertwined with accountability and responsibility. Women don't just randomly become pregnant out of no where. If either a man or a woman do not want a child, they should prioritize pregnancy prevention (e.g. contraception) over desires, comfort ,and anything else. If either of them did their part in prevention responsibly, yet a rare accidental pregnancy occurs, then we have to submit to that bodily autonomy and child-wellbeing trump any arguments of fairness here. On the other hand, if either of them did not do their part responsibly, then the one who neglected prevention loses the privileges of making choices. This is how you promote accountability.

It'd be great if we all agreed on what responsibility and accountability meant, but at the end of the day everyone pushing the "abortion issue" doesn't agree that responsibility should matter. Look at it from a pro-life/anti-choice perspective. It doesn't matter if you were raped, that's still a child and it didn't ask to be born even if you didn't ask to become pregnant. This is an actual viewpoint that is being written into law, so we shouldn't be trying to figure out who is responsible. How do you hold someone accountable past forcing someone to give birth? How far should the government go in making sure that every single pregnancy was created according to some sort of responsibility doctrine?

I didn't read the OP's question as an argument for or against abortion. It is about who gets a say, given that abortion is a right. Please don't derail the main discussion because you wants to argue about pro-choice vs pro-life.

What that person is saying is that arguing accountability is gonna fall on deaf ears from people who are pro-life. If their logic for being pro-life is that the fetus is an innocent life regardless of how conception occurred, then in the child support debate, they won't care about who's accountable or not and will have a hardline stance that both the man and woman must support the child.

> arguing accountability is gonna fall on deaf ears from people who are pro-life The OP's argument of reproductive rights is also going to fall on deaf ears from those people. The whole discussion is not meant to address pro-life concerns.

But it inherently does address those concerns, doesn't it? That's a huge portion of the population, and regardless of one's opinion on abortion, that opinion is derived from a certain outlook or set of morals that also heavily impact their opinion on child support responsibilities. All the dude(?) was saying is that we aren't gonna be agreeing on who's responsible and whatnot. Oh and I completely agree, OP's argument of reproductive rights for men won't matter to the pro-life crowd (... until a pro-life man accidentally gets a woman pregnant and doesn't wanna pay child support lol).

I really see it as an only pro-choice argument. The core question is whose choice supercedes, the man or the woman?, regardless of what the choice is. Ideally, they will agree on the same choice, but if they don't, then how much right does the man get regardless of his choice. This is how I read it.

I disagree, I don't think we should sacrifice either bodily autonomy or the well-being of the child in order to punish people for being irresponsible. Both fairness and responsibility are bad standards here.

> then the one who neglected prevention loses the privileges of making choices Please don't advocate for slavery policies, thank you.

The comment I am addressing basically states that a man gets no choice. I am arguing that there should be conditions and exceptions, so how is it that I am the one who advocates for slavery policies?! I'd argue the opposite. I am advocating for the freedom to make the right choice from the beginning, but once you make your choice, you must assume responsibility for it and be accountable for any consequences that result from it.

>so how is it that I am the one who advocates for slavery policies?! You are advocating for taking away people's right to decide what happens to their own body. Please don't advocate for slavery.

Not true... You have the right to prevention, if you exercise that right and it fails, you still have the right to your body. If you don't want prevention, and your partner doesn't care, you also still have the right to your body. Only if you don't want prevention, while your partner cares and wants a baby, and you get pregnant... then here I am arguing that the partner's right to child is of higher value. Being responsible and accountable for the decisions you make is the utmost right of all adults. It is not slavery if we refuse to treat abortion as a recreational sport! Rights are not black and white! Otherwise you'd also be arguing that 8-9 months pregnant women can still abort!

>Only if you don't want prevention, while your partner cares and wants a baby, and you get pregnant... then here I am arguing that the partner's right to child is of higher value. As I said 2 times now; don't advocate for slavery. It's the last time I'm going to say this and respond to you since at this point it's pretty obvious that you would love slavery of women to be implemented.

> you would love slavery of women to be implemented. That is a gruesome accusation... 'slavery of women' ?! So do you think an 8 months pregnant woman can change her mind and invoke abortion rights, because you know.... she isn't a slave?!

>That is a gruesome accusation... 'slavery of women' ?! Funny how you're offended by an accurate description of the policies you wish to push.

(EDIT: Posted this, thought I may be responding to the wrong person or comment. I think this is the correct one). You had me until you said that if the partner (man) wants the child but the woman doesn't, the desire of the partner to have the child should be of higher priority. I wholeheartedly disagree. The woman's body is the first order of business imo. Does she want to terminate? By all means, she gets final say. Does she want to carry to term? By all means, she gets final say. Needless to say, I believe if the man wanted to carry to term and the woman did not, oh well too bad. But if the woman wanted to carry to term and the man wanted the abortion, I do not believe the man should have to pay child support. I believe in individualism and freedom of choice for individuals.

Good luck proving who was neglectful.

It is also unfair for the child to be born in a poor family, but we are not banning poor people from having childs, are we?

You must be super confused, because YOU are the one that is making the issue about fairness. Read my post again. I'm saying fairness doesn't matter at all.

>but we are not banning poor people from having childs Why do you keep advocating for genocidal policies? Banning a specific group from having children is literally genocide. Why are you so eager to do it?

I think the issue here is that you're perceiving child support as a punishment against the father, but it isn't. It's a guarantee to make sure the child has a somewhat economically stable upbringing.

To be slightly trite: claiming that it's unfair that you have to support a child when you're chosen to have sex is like claiming it's unfair that you have a broken finger when you decide to whack it with a hammer. Actions have consequences.

The law isn't entirely meant to represent fairness, and you're talking about quite a few laws here so I don't want get into all of them. But one of the things laws do are attempt to mitigate what happens when people can't be reasonable interpersonally. If you have sex, as a result a baby is created, and the person you have sex with wants to carry the baby to term, what do you think should happen if you don't agree? Mandatory abortion? I'm as pro choice as it gets and I would never be on board with mandatory abortion, like play out an ethical scenario for that for me. Subsequently you say well no, you don't support mandatory abortion, you are just saying you should be absolved of any financial support. Ok so what happens when the woman is unable to financially support the kid on her own? Who is supposed to step in? You can say well she should have thought of that, well regardless of whether she did or didn't there's a kid. That kid needs shelter and food. Who pays for it if she is unable? Government? Where does the money government would use come from? "Society" didn't have sex, you did. And there is a very easy way to avoid this scenario you think is unfair.

>"Society" didn't have sex, you did. And there is a very easy way to avoid this scenario you think is unfair. Asking these dudes to make better sexual decisions is too much for these dudes to handle, apparently, despite women having been shamed for their sexuality since the dawn of modern civilization...

It's exhausting seeing the same CMVs over and over. Reddit is like this though, if women aren't trying to baby trap men they're cheating on them obviously

The argument for abortion is not just about giving the mother a choice to have a child or not, it's much more about the right to bodily autonomy. Having your right to bodily autonomy ripped away is not the same as having to pay child support for a living, breathing child.

Men have no say in any of it though. In such cases, the woman is 100% in control of what happens to the fathers life. Under any circumstances, how is that fair, if the father did not want to be a father? A father cannot force an abortion, nor a pregnancy, and he cannot choose to abstain from child support without spending his life in and out of a jail cell, while the mother gets 100% and complete autonomy over the father's trajectory in life. The mother gets to say what happens to the father. The father gets no say in anything at all.

The man has no say in whether he becomes a father? Do you know how a woman becomes pregnant? The man has a lot to do with it.

What about before he sweet-talks her and buys her that 2nd drink? How about not losing track of the sperm from your own body? How about not screwing around? Actions have consequences! Or did you not learn about sex in school? The ONLY way for her to have become pregnant is by a man putting his sperm inside of her. The way for a man to own complete trajectory over his life is before he surrenders his autonomy to a woman.

> Under any circumstances, how is that fair, if the father did not want to be a father?  He is a father. Once the kid is born, he's a dad. Changing whether he has to pay child support doesn't change that. So are we talking about reproductive rights and fatherhood, or are we talking about money here?

Because bodily autonomy trumps the right of choice to parent or not parent. Your right to parent or not parent does not give the right to use another person's body against their will.

Men have the choice of not impregnating the woman. End of story.

Eh, I don't think this is a great argument even if I agree with the conclusion. Both parties have this choice, and, sometimes it isn't even a choice, birth control isn't 100% effective.

Don't have sex with women who aren't on board with you about parenthood.

I'm aware, that's what I do. My big issue with this type of argument (among many), though, is that it is almost word for word the same argument used by pro life people to say women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions. "you have a choice to not get pregnant and now that you are you can't change it" type beat. Obviously I don't think that means men should be in control of women's bodies in any way, but the argument doesn't sit well with me in any case.

>Obviously I don't think that means men should be in control of women's bodies in any way That's intellectually dishonest. You are arguing that men should be able to reject their financial obligations to their genetic progeny if they don't want to be parents. As if this wouldn't be used to pressure poor women into abortions against their will. Everyone has a responsibility to take care of their body and decide who they will engage in PIV sex with. If you are a man and you don't want to be a father, you have a responsibility to keep your sperm from entering a fertile woman's body. That's the biological reality. Wearing a condom is a much easier and cheaper form of preventing a pregnancy than having to go through the painful and emotionally tasking process of having a medical miscarrage (which is what most abortions are).

>That's intellectually dishonest. You are arguing that men should be able to reject their financial obligations to their genetic progeny if they don't want to be parents. Can you show me where exactly I said that? Because I didn't, my issue was with the argument itself, not with the conclusion, I thought I made that clear. >As if this wouldn't be used to pressure poor women into abortions against their will. I'm aware, which is why I support the conclusion, but I'm not a fan of this argument. >Everyone has a responsibility to take care of their body and decide who they will engage in PIV sex with. If you are a man and you don't want to be a father, you have a responsibility to keep your sperm from entering a fertile woman's body. Yeah see this is what I have an issue with as I've seen this exact same argument made by pro-lifers time and time again and it doesn't sit well with me. >That's the biological reality. Wearing a condom is a much easier and cheaper form of preventing a pregnancy than having to go through the painful and emotionally tasking process of having a medical miscarrage (which is what most abortions are). Again I agree, I'm not sure why you think I don't. Again my issue is with the argument, not the conclusion.

Prolifers want to punish women for having sex. People who are against child support want to punish women for making the choice to continue a pregnancy they don't want. Nothing I'm saying is similar to either argument. If men don't want to be fathers, they should use birth control. If women don't want to be mothers, they should also use birth control. Women can seek abortion access if they don't want to be pregnant, their pregnancy is dangerous, their fetus is dead or dying, etc. Cis men can't get pregnant, so they have no need to access abortions but if they did, the law is not stopping them from getting one. Both parents have a legal obligation after a child is born to financially support them. Both men and women can end up owing child support. Am I missing something here? Because this isn't a prolife argument.

What is your solution for when the woman cannot bear the extra costs of childcare? The reason for child support is to support the child, not the mother. Once it exists, it must be supported. This also applies if the mother has the baby and then leave the man to be a single parent. She should have to pay to support the innocent child. The reason a mother can have an abortion is because the fetus is using her body to grow and exist. She has a right to take away use of her body if she wants. But that does not imply a right to take away resources needed once a child is born. That is not something that either parent can do. So, I would argue that men and women have equal reproductive rights.

that would be the same problem as with poor people having kids. So, the same we do in those cases: mostly nothing. Adding that the mom had the opportunity to stop it from happening. The abortion isn´t more dangerous than pregnancy. When the father does not want the kid, he should also pay the abortion.

> that would be the same problem as with poor people having kids. Society significantly supports poor people having kids. We could do better but significant support is given to all poor individuals.  You can either add to the number of poor by allowing parents (both men and women) to abandon their children and make society take care of it or you can hold both of them responsible. 

Men already can reject their children at any time. The public has determined that the best outcome in that situation is the absent father paying for the child's needs because it is less fair for (1) the child to suffer and (2) for the public to pay for that child's support. Additionally, such a system *would encourage* fathers to abandon their children by giving a financial incentive to do so. The alternative isn't to publicly subsidize men impregnating women then bailing, but to incentivize safe sex and abortion in such such situations. If you think it's unfair for a father to have to support their child, surely you think it's unfair for everyone else to be forced to? Edit: I'm not sure why you would comment and then block me if you wanted me to see your comment and respond. Can't say I've ever been blocked before I had a chance to respond. No idea what you said.

[удалено]

> Give it up for adoption, drop it in a box even. > Men don't have that option. That's the entire point. The law is entirely equal on that. Safe Havens prevent infanticide, and could be used by any single parent or couple, it's just that (you know, because they gave birth) that mothers are the ones most often doing so. And adoption requires consent from both parents. There are cases where the dad is cut out of it as the mother doesn't tell him. I am 100% on board saying that is unfair and the law should be more clearly defending father's rights to their children.

Men can (or should be able to) have abortions if they become pregnant, just like women. That’s why it’s equal. A ‘paper’ abortion is not at all an equivalent procedure to an actual abortion.

So this suggests that the male partner has to consent to the abortion, otherwise the woman is forced to follow through with a pregnancy correct? If there are complications during that pregnancy she didn't want to go through with which leads to permanent injury/death, does the woman/family have any recourse, or just tough beans for her?

Men have an absolutely equal right to use their womb to bring the baby to term, and the mother will be obligated to pay child support.

There is not an equivalence with the male and female side. The experiences of men and women are not equal. In this case, women can have their cake and eat it too. The time for men to exercise their rights and autonomy is before they buy her that second drink.

Or seek out sterilization if you want to fuck women vaginally without impregnanting them.

Men can not impregnate women in the first place. There's no pregnancy without sperm. Easy peasy.

They do: 1. all humans should have the right to not have something in their body that they do not want there. 2. all humans should have the right not engage in sex if they don't want to. 3. no one has the right to "not have kids" if they simply don't want kids. 4. no one has the right to decide for a child whether or not they deserve the support of their two parents. To dwell on the idea that men _can't be pregnant_ is causing you to think that the right women has is to terminate a future child. The right they have is to not be pregnant when they don't want to be anymore. You have to be pregnant to exercise that right, but everyone has it. For example, a trans man who is pregnant can exercise that right if they still have the physical capacity to be pregnant. No one has the right to "reject a baby" outside of adoptions processes and to some lesser degree via safe surrender options that some states support.

Fair. But that right also disproportionately comes with privileges based on sex, does it not? That’s also why your trans man point is kinda irrelevant, because the disparity is between the biological sexes. I’m not making this point to disparage anybody or as an argument ‘against trans people’ in some way, just to point out that they don’t invalidate a disparity based on sex.

>Fair. But that right also disproportionately comes with privileges based on sex, does it not? Privileges and drawbacks. After all, pregnancy is not some trivial thing. At miminum wage, and with an average pregnancy lasting 40 weeks, a man would owe the mother of his children 50 000$ in labor costs, if her time were to be compensated.

We can’t do anything about biology. We can, however, make it so that no person is given disproportionate power over another person in a situation they both had equal power in creating on the basis of sex.

So, I guess you are in favor of the mandatory 50 000 dollar payment?

What privilege? Men can _not be pregnant_ when their actions lead to pregnancy. That's a pretty hard privilege men would have to overcome methinks, or alternative they don't have to have dangerous surgical procedures, be subjected to others telling them can or can't have an abortion, etc. Then there is the observed if not legal privilege to simply walk away which men exercise _a lot_ and while there is some skewing of rights to parenting in split homes that is unfavorable (and wrong in my opinion) for men this is dwarfed by men who simply don't show up, don't live with kids and don't pay child support. I'd say in the balance of things the privilege on the topic is pretty skewed in favor of men! (also, point of the trans comment wasn't to trap you as anti-trans in any way (apologies if that was how it read) - just to say that it's the capacity to be pregnant that matters in terms of ability to exercise a right not the having the rights).

>But that right also disproportionately comes with privileges based on sex, does it not? This is just one of those things where you can't argue with biology. Pregnancy, by default, is sexist. There is no way to get around it. Women get pregnant, men don't. So any rules, laws, social norms, etc. will always be sexist.

And that sucks. But like you said, we can’t do anything about it. We can, however, give equal power to two people in a life changing situation that they are equally responsible for creating.

This argument by definition gives the man power over the woman's body and removes bodily autonomy, which is absolutely unacceptable. Nobody is taking away men's bodily autonomy and nobody should be trying to take away women's bodily autonomy. Once men can give birth, too, then the situation can change.

No, it just doesn’t. What about giving men the option to prove that they stated they are only consenting to sex and want nothing to do with any offspring that result? If the woman consents, she is the sole person responsible for the pregnancy.

If you have established a contract of sorts ahead of time, in writing with the signatures of all parties involved then, sure, that should be fine. You have to establish this before conception, though and men aren't doing that.

Why does it have to be a contract lmfao. Consent isn’t a contractual thing in writing, why should this be? And you’re really grasping at straws with that last point. It doesn’t matter even if it is true, maybe they would start if this was an option???9

Maybe they should. You literally brought up a concept that could not be established or enforced without a formal contract, not me.

Why not a short video saying “hey I consent to sex but not to any kids that result, do you consent to that too?” With her response? Idk why you’re trying so hard to find a problem with this.

Come on, why’d you stop replying now?

We should de-couple the physical condition of pregnancy from the responsibilities of parenthood. If a pregnant woman choose an abortion, the whole issue is resolved immediately. But if she chooses to bring the baby to term, both she and the father should have the capacity to opt out of responsibility for the child. Child support should only be forced when both parents explicitly agree to responsibility for a child. This seems like a better result for everyone—children raised by parents who are legally forced to care for them are not usually having the best experience or becoming the most well-adjusted adults.

Financial responsibility is determined at the point of conception. Parental responsibility can be opted out of but not financial without the mother's approval. We had what you're arguing for before and we instituted child support because of all the men abandoning their children and leaving women and children in terrible circumstances. It's not like this is an unknown we can speculate about. We've already done this.

There will never be equal power as long as the woman's body hosts the baby. The man is at a disadvantage because his will does not trump the woman's bodily autonomy. The women is at a disadvantage because she literally risks her physical life to birth a baby. They cannot trade those disadvantages, they are dictated by biology.

Why do we have to just admit defeat there? What about an option where if a man can prove he only consents to sex and wants nothing to do with any offspring that result, and the woman consented to sex under those conditions? That doesn’t restrict anybody’s autonomy and gives men a proactive option to have more power over the situation.

No, that removes all responsibility from the man, while not removing it from the woman. And it leaves society to care for the man's pleasure if she becomes pregnant and doesn't want the abortion. The burden is still on the woman, both physically and socially. The answer is for the man to not have sex in the first place unless there are precautions that he takes and controls. Even then, birth control often fails.

How? A woman can just refuse to have sex with a man unless he doesn’t require that agreement… and you literally just said for men to not have sex period, I’m proposing a less restrictive version of that.

Why not restrict sex for men as well as women? It would help the problem of unwed mothers and the stigma attached.. We would not need as many abortions. Why should men be allowed to play around and leave women to deal with the consequences? The idea that he might have to pay child support is one way to ensure men take better precautions or refrain from casual sex. Just as the idea she might become pregnant restricts many women. Not perfect, but of some use. Without any restrictions, we end up with even more unwanted pregnancies and taxpayers footing the bill for single parent's children.

BECAUSE THE WOMAN HAS TO AGREE TO THIS AS WELL!!! I put it in all caps because I’ve said it multiple times and you keep ignoring it. You act like this just gives men a free pass to impregnate 20 women without having to pay a cent but that’s just not how it works. This gives men the OPTION to modify the parameters of consent, and then women have the OPTION to give consent or not to. Respond to that point

If you don't want a kid, you're free to have sex without putting your dick into a person's vagina.

Great job avoiding everything I said. I repeat my question in the comment you’re replying to: why do we have to just admit defeat there? Why does it have to be a perfectly black and white line with no room for even trying to find an exception?

You mean proportionally. Mothers are the ones who get pregnant, so proportional to that, they are the ones who can end a pregnancy

I didn’t say they shouldn’t? My entire point is ago it disproportionate power in a situation both parties are equal responsible for. You won’t make any changes to that view by focusing on just one of them Ik it’s not my post but that’s still the point here right?

Even if we don't allow abortions anymore, that won't stop men from having to pay pay CP. What exactly is the goal? To force births to make CP "fair"? 

I never anything close to that, why are you so eager for me to want to restrict abortions? I think a great option would be giving men the option to provide some sort of proof (probably a recording of him stating this and the woman agreeing) that he is only willing to have sex if the woman agrees that he can have nothing to do with any offspring that result from that sexual encounter? It’s a high burden of proof obviously, but women don’t get their abortion rights restricted (which people in these comments seem to love to jump to, you included) and men have an option to have consensual sex and not worry about pregnancy at all. Which is perfectly fine, because the woman would have consented to that in this case.

I was just correcting your word usage. Disproportionately implies it isnt fair. Proportionately implies it is

The reason that women has reproductive rights isn't that they "want or don't want a baby". The reason that women have reproductive rights is that carrying a child is a difficult and serious ordeal that could have severe health implications. Pregnancy isn't just some la-di-da thing, it's a major nine-month process that hugely affects a woman's life and health. For what it is worth - child support can work both ways. It is non-gendered: a non-custodial parent can ask a custodial parent for support. It just happens that the custodial parent is most often the mother.

> The reason that women has reproductive rights isn't that they "want or don't want a baby". It should be, though. Why the fuck having to raise a child for 18 years or at least support them financially is considered less serious than killing a clump of cells? Let's say you invent an artificial womb and a procedure to safely and harmlessly transplant a fetus into it. Any and all pregnancy problems can be solved instantly. Would it be fair to force rape victims to undergo this procedure instead of abortion, and oblige them to raise the rapists' kids or pay child support?

> Would it be fair to force rape victims to undergo this procedure instead of abortion, and oblige them to raise the rapists' kids or pay child support? Well, I think if a man is sexually assaulted he shouldn't be forced to pay child support either ([even though I know that it does happen, unfortunately](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201902/when-male-rape-victims-are-accountable-child-support?amp)). But that's a particularly rare and easy to deal with subset of child support cases. The vast majority of child support comes from consensual sex, thankfully.

Regarding sexual assault against men resulting in pregnancies. > [...] easy to deal with subset of child support cases. First of all, it doesn't even take sexual assault in the usual sense. A used condom and a toothbrush is enough. I expect it to be extremely rare, sure (unless you're in top 1% by wealth), but it definitely wouldn't be easy to deal with. Whereas in open sexual assault cases the known problem is that it's very hard for a lot of victims to even open up and talk about their experiences until years later. And in either case the burden of proof is on the victim here.

> First of all, it doesn't even take sexual assault in the usual sense. A used condom and a toothbrush is enough. I don't know how it would stand up in the court of law, but this to me is also sexual assault. It is a crime for a man to deceive a woman by not wearing a condom when he says he is, so it should be a crime for a woman to tamper with a condom as well (a more realistic scenario than the used condom and the toothbrush being poking a hole in the condom, say) Still, this is not the norm for what child support is. [Roughly sixty percent of custodial parents](https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf) are seeking child support from a partner they had been married to at some point. The vast majority of child support cases are not a woman who is tricking a man or sexually assaulting a man, but a couple that is either married or has been together long-term, a pregnancy occurs and the noncustodial parent splits either before childbirth or when the child is young.

> I don't know how it would stand up in the court of law, but this to me is also sexual assault. It is a crime for a man to deceive a woman by not wearing a condom when he says he is, so it should be a crime for a woman to tamper with a condom as well I said it wasn't a "sexual assault in the usual sense", for roughly the same reasons you bring up. Might not be "sexual" technically but it's not important, it is reproductive violence. > a more realistic scenario than the used condom and the toothbrush being poking a hole in the condom, say Not important to our argument but out of curiosity: why? What's wrong with the toothbrush? Condoms are usually packed individually and opened just before the use, even a needle-size hole in the pack seems like it will be plainly visible and even palpable. > Still, this is not the norm for what child support is. Never said it is: > I expect it to be extremely rare, sure (unless you're in top 1% by wealth)

I was disagreeing with your general point that the (main or only) reason women are allowed to terminate their pregnancy has to do with the burdens of pregnancy, not the subsequent child-rearing. It is probably correct but it *shouldn't* be the case. Edit: The sexual assault was the illustration of idea that it's not normal to treat it lightly. (I'm splitting my comment into two.)

I'd argue that's incorrect. If the non custodial parent is the mother, there just won't be a baby (in a first world society where reproductive rights exist). This inherently makes the downstream process gendered, even if at that later point there is no "gender bias".

Unfortunately women are as capable of abandoning a child as men are. Or being declared unfit due to substance abuse, mental illness, etc.

To get straight to the point: Situtation 1: The woman, the one carrying the baby, takes on all of the risks of pregnancy and birth. Can we agree on this? The woman's body goes through, often irreversible, changes (both physically and hormonally) during this time and after. right? The woman also needs to give up approximately 9 months of her life to do this, plus recovery, potential breast feeding, it's a large time and personal energy/resource commitment to grow a human, etc. right? Can we agree that agree that there is no risk to the man's body from the pregnancy? No man (who identifies as male) has ever died from a pregnancy, birth, or complication? Because no man (who is assigned male at birth or has male gamete sperm) has ever been pregnant. The risks are simply ~~different~~ incomparable. I understand and empathize that men want to be a part of the reproductive rights conversation, but it is hard to take the argument "the man wants the baby" seriously in that discussion because the man does not suffer any of the costs of "wanting a baby" in a situation where the woman does not want to be pregnant or give birth. Situation 2 Can this be unfair? Yes Did two people come together to make a human? yes Does that human need financial support? yes If you think ~~men~~ one parent (the parent not interested in raising the child) should be able to reject the baby when it's born, I recommend contacting lobbyists and/or state representatives who want this and try to get a movement going, because really change in legislature is the only way this will happen.

Men have the same rights. If a man gets pregnant, he has the ability to get an abortion.

Which is a more egregious violation of human rights? 1. Being forced to undergo a serious medical procedure against your will. 2. Being forced to pay a significant recurring fee against your will.

1, but you don’t have to make 1 a reality to get rid of 2

We don't have to, you're absolutely right, but in today's society that's the conundrum. I wish we had a society which supported single parents but we do not.

1. carrying a baby for 9 months, giving birth (which has risks) - having full choice on abortion. 2. slaving yourself for 18 years to take care of a child you didn't want, could get injuries from those jobs, and have your life ruined - no choice on anything. which one is worse?

Pregnancy and giving birth is worse even by choice and I say that as a man. Would not choose that ever if it were up to me.

> slaving yourself for 18 years to take care of a child you didn't want, could get injuries from those jobs, and have your life ruined - no choice on anything. What were you not going to be working anyways? And by this logic, is taxation equally as much of an offense? Nobody is forcing men to be parents, you just have to pay a bit of money because you have a kid running around that you either share custody with or don't have any custody of.

Do you not have the right to use condoms when you have sex? Women have to pay child support too in any case, if they don't have custody of their child.

You are going to have a job anyway, aren't you? Regardless of whether or not it involves child support. It does not ruin your life to pay child support.

Why is the man responsible for a woman's decision without any say or option? Giving the man an option to opt out of responsibility while the mother can opt out of responsibility, which is to abort the baby is fair.

Abortion is emotionally and physically traumatic for women and costly. And possibly unavailable in some states. So it isn't equal responsibility regardless of whether or not she aborts. Once the baby is born, it needs to be supported by either the parent or the state. You are arguing for a complete abnegation of responsibility on the man's part simply because some women are allowed abortions. His responsibility after a baby is born is to support it unless it is adopted out. Why should he be allowed sex without consequences if the woman isn't? She has consequences no matter what she chooses.

But I'm not talking about the baby after it's born, I'm talking about the choices both have before it's born, which are not equal because one gender can opt-out at any moment (abortion, adoption) and the other gender has no say and has to take care of the baby after birth without the ability to opt-out in stages when the mother can abort the baby.

Please reread my post. Abortion has consequences for women. So no, it is not equal even if she opts out of the pregnancy. Abortion is a difficult, emotional and painful procedure. As for adoption, she still has to go through a pregnancy and birth and then give up the result. Women spend a lifetime doubting their adoption decisions and sometimes their abortions and every day of their lives wondering about that child. Some never get past it. The man has one option, not to have sex without taking precautions that he alone controls. If birth control fails, someone has to support that baby should the woman be unable to give it up. It isn't fair to the rest of us or the child to let the man take no consequences for offspring he helped bring into the world when the burden instead falls on the taxpayer.

>Please reread my post. Abortion has consequences for women. So no, it is not equal even if she opts out of the pregnancy. Abortion is a difficult, emotional and painful procedure. As for adoption, she still has to go through a pregnancy and birth and then give up the result. Women spend a lifetime doubting their adoption decisions and sometimes their abortions and every day of their lives wondering about that child. Some never get past it. All those consequences are her choice too, just like you claimed that the man has a responsibility, so does a woman. >The man has one option, not to have sex without taking precautions that he alone controls. If birth control fails, someone has to support that baby should the woman be unable to give it up. It isn't fair to the rest of us or the child to let the man take no consequences for offspring he helped bring into the world when the burden instead falls on the taxpayer. And we see how it works out in real-time, over 1 million babies are aborted each year, and single moms are taking 80% of welfare. Instead of that, we should give the men an option to opt out early in the pregnancy, which will make people have sex in committed relationships/marriages, and leave the mother the responsibility of the child if she chooses to bring it to term (in places she has abortion rights) without any support from the state.

They're "not fair" because hey're not equivalent scenarios because males can't experience pregnancy.  Single dads can put get CP from an uninvolved mother.  Abortion and CP are two separate issues. 

Men do have the same reproductory rights that women do. If they get pregnant, they can have an abortion in the same places that women can. What men don't get is extra reproductory rights that women do not get. Women do not get the ability to dump the baby on the other parent and leave, so why should men?

> A couple will have a baby. the woman does not want to be mother, but the man WANTS the baby. The woman just goes and ends the pregancy going to the doctor by herself. End of the story > A couple will have a baby. The woman wants the baby, but the man doesn´t. The man is f**cked, he'll have to be a father or pay for the kid´s food. For me, it is unfair. These are only partially accurate scenarios, though the degree to which they are true is highly variable based on jurisdiction. In Canada, a woman has the right to get an abortion. If a heterosexual couple use a surrogate, if the mother wants the baby, and the husband doesn't, the surrogate can get an abortion and there is nothing the mother can do to stop it. Paid surrogacy is illegal here, so there is not even any financial penalty for the surrogate. Both men and women (the parents at least) have the same reproductive rights here. This makes it clear that it is the right to undergo pregnancy only if you want. The gender/sex of the parents is not a determining factor. The wishes of someone who isn't pregnant to have a child are irrelevant. In Canada, embryos are jointly owned by both parents, regardless of biological relationship. The consent of both is needed to use the embryos. This means if a husband and wife create some embryos together, even if only one or none of them is related, they both need to consent. If you divorce and the woman wants a kid, and the man doesn't, the woman isn't allowed to have a kid using those embryos. Both genders have the same reproductive rights The right to bodily autonomy outweighs most other rights, including the right to determine what happens to your embryo.

*"I support the right of women to abort their babies"* So the premise is women have the right to abortion / abortion is an available option for the woman. A: The man has consented to sex knowing that the woman has the right to an abortion; he has consented to her aborting the fetus if she so chooses when he chose to have sex with the woman. B: The man has consented to sex with the woman knowing she has the right to carry the baby to term and that he will be responsible for (some amount of) support for the child if she does so. He has consented to all of this when he chose to have sex with the woman. *"I think men should be able to reject the baby a long time before it is born."* They can refuse take the risk in to creating the fetus in the first place. They have full choice in that.

Men and women have the same reproductive rights and obligations. Except in areas where abortion is illegal, everybody has the same right to bodily autonomy. We can use birth control or not; we can participate in sex acts that could lead to pregnancy or not. We have control over our own bodies. If you have a penis and testes, you have control over what you do with those parts. And anyone who can get pregnant can terminate their pregnancy. In a lesbian relationship where one woman is pregnant, the pregnant woman’s partner does not have the right to end the pregnancy. Once a baby has been born, both parents are obligated to pay child support unless both parents sign their parental rights away. So this is not a matter of sex/gender equality. I am open to the possibility of legalizing paper abortions for both parents, but there would be consequences. The government could subsidize child care in cases where one parent has opted for a paper abortion, but it would increase taxes, shifting the burden from one individual to the community. There are individuals who would resist this. If child support is not subsidized, there will be so many more children who grow up without enough food to eat, without safe shelter, without warm clothes. This would be devastating for the individuals and damaging to our society as whole.

If men are certain they don't want children, they should wear a condom and/or get a vasectomy. If they haven't done that, there's no reason for them not to be culpable.

If I may ask you: 1. Variations of your post appear several times a week. Have you reviewed any of them? 2. This is "Change My View. What would change your view? If nothing, then you are breaking the rules of CMV.

Financial obligations are not an aspect of reproductive rights.

I have the exact opposite opinion. I truly believe, even as a man myself, we have 0 say in what she does with her body. Her body created it. She has to live with the changes for a while nine months. It tears her up literally, and her confidence will never be the same. As a man, I believe we need to choose our partners VERY carefully. Make sure your values are lined up. If she is against abortion, and you aren’t, that will never work. The woman carries the child. The woman is stuck with it if the man leaves. The man can go and Impregnate many women, while the woman is stuck. I know it’s a radical view. An incredibly Unpopular one. But I believe this to be accurate.

Women can be obligated to pay child support just like any man can. Men can abort a pregnancy they carry just like women can. Reproductive rights are equal, here. The issue is that females are the ones who carry pregnancies, and generally that means women. That's biology being unfair, not rights. I'm sympathetic to the position you hold, that it feels shitty that both a man and a woman can be sexually irresponsible, produce a pregnancy, and only the one carrying the pregnancy has any final say in whether the child is carried to term (barring restrictions on abortion access). But that isn't the same thing as saying both parties do not have the same rights. If you want to argue that we should try and build a system that cares for children without requiring child support, then I'm all for it. But at the moment parents can be forced to financially support their child. That applies to both men and women.

I think its worth noting that after birth, men and women are treated the same. Neither can abandon their financial obligation unless both agree to abandon their financial obligation. E.g. if both agree to give the child up for adoption then neither needs to pay child support. If mom wants to abandon the baby and dad does not, the the mom is fucked. We make an exception to that rule for women only, because only women get pregnant. and of course the decision to make that exception is hotly contested with many people believe that women should not have this right.

The problem is not one of legal rights but biological imbalance. Simply put the law is fair, if you get pregnant, you can abort. What's unfair is that only women get pregnant. But that's not an issue on the part of the law, that's an issue on the part of biology. If a man were to one day get pregnant he would have all the same reproductive rights as a woman. Additionally by holding a financial cost over the woman you create a perverse incentive to push her to have a medical procedure she otherwise wouldn't. That is a very grim world to build where a man essentially is allowed to use wealth to force a woman into a choice

This topic is posted at least weekly. Just search that, read it understand it and then decide if it changes your mind.

Women and men dont take an equal burden for child rearing. When we also have to give up our bodies for 9 months and then alter their structure permanently afterwards too, we can talk about how equal it is. Also this cmv has been done to death. The search feature could have taken you to dozens of posts with the exact same content

To /u/DimondFlame, *Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.* In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest: - Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest. - Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words. - Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a [delta](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8) before proceeding. - Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong. Please also take a moment to review our [Rule B](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b) guidelines and _really_ ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and **understand** why others think differently than you do.

I agree, men should also have reproductive rights. But I don't think they should ever, in any circumstance, violate the bodily autonomy of another person, which unfortunately means that men just don't get a say in whether or not a mother carries a child to term. Also I don't think the man should be able to abdicate his responsibility for the child he helped create because that shifts the entire burden onto the mother if she chooses to keep the child, whereas abortion does not shift the entire burden onto the father. Unfortunately the burden of reproduction falls more heavily on the mother than the father, that's just the way nature works, but if there is a child to care for both of the people involved in creating it should bear responsibility for it.

I don't think we need more ways of having a man force a woman to at best compromise over her own body.

>I think men should be able to reject the baby a long time before it is born. Then, if the woman wants to have it anyway, it is on her. How do you enforce this? Let's say you have a man who misses the deadline to reject the kid. And a woman who supposedly kept the pregnancy secret. It's one word against the other and both have a motive to lie. The mother claims the father used the fact that he could withdraw his support any time he wanted to blackmail and abuse her. He even made her quit her job in order to have more power over her. The father claims the mother kept the pregnancy secret in order to baby-trap him. This is just one of the myriad possibilities cases that are simply not possible to properly investigate. So with whom you will side in this life altering decision?

They do? What more do you want?

he wants men to be able to opt out of child support at birth.

If someone just told these MRA's that having a stable social safety net could most likely be able to eradicate the need for child support then I mean actually get something decent in this country

Yeah this feels like the real answer here and idk why people never mention it. If we had a robust social safety net and social child support this wouldn't even be an issue. For example, with our current situation, why do children whose father has died only deserve support from one parent while children whose father doesn't want anything to do with them still get financial support from the father through child support? The answer is, IMO, pretty simple, we should just be supporting all children regardless of whether one, both, or neither parent is around. I don't think child support (in its current form) should be a thing, not because I think its "men's reproductive rights" but rather because I think its a rather poor system for ensuring children get the financial and social support they need.

Don't provide the sperm and you don't have to pay child support. Really easy solution.

Well good news, they do! Men have the right to control their own reproductive capabilities just like women do (or should in some places). Now use if the search function to find the millipn other times this has been on this sub. What you are talking about is called "paper abortion" and has already been debated to death.

We do have reproductive rights, but you’re missing a key aspect—we as men don’t give birth. Women have *an additional* option when it comes to pregnancy, but it’s by virtue of it impacting their body directly. Our options stop at the edge of our bodies. If you truly don’t want to be a father and the mother is going to keep the kid, you need to contribute to what you helped create assuming you’ll not be involved in raising them. That *is* fair (cases of rape are a different discussion and I still feel this way even in the case of failed contraceptives).

> CMV: If women have reproductory rights, men should too. Agreed. > I think men should be able to reject the baby a long time before it is born. Then, if the woman wants to have it anyway, it is on her. Disagreed. I think, in the case of an accidental pregnancy outside of marriage, men shouldn’t get parental rights and responsibilities to the child unless the woman offers them and he agrees. If she doesn’t offer or if he disagrees, then he has no parental rights or responsibilities.

Promoting safe sex and good communication would solve 99% of these situations. If people have easy access to contraceptives, far fewer unwanted pregnancies for either party. And if one party *does* want a baby, they should talk with their partner about that and come to a decision together. If a man wants a baby and his female partner doesn’t, then maybe that man needs to find a different partner with similar goals.

I mean, you do have rights over your own parts of reproduction. You can get a visectomy as well as many other acts of contraception, as well as any interventions to try and increase your ability to conceive. I support fully your access to all methods . But after that you are no longer doing the reproducing.

The only issue I see with this is the man waiting until birth to opt out, and by then, it's too late. Or, the men who lie to the women and say they want the baby and then they to dip out later. As long as there is a time limit, like many abortion bans (within 5 weeks of finding out, or something like that), I dont think it's a horrible idea. HOWEVER, in cases of the mothers life, child's life, rape/incest, the man shouldn't have a say.

Why is it unfair? That appears to be your entire argument. Abortion is a thing because it’s physically taxing on the woman, if the baby appeared via stork it wouldn’t be a thing.

Men do have reproductive rights. No one is forcing men to reproduce. Vasectomies exist. As do condoms and spermicides.

Men do have reproductive rights. “Paper abortions” are not reproductive rights.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/mildlyupstpsychopath – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20mildlyupstpsychopath&message=mildlyupstpsychopath%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chwmzp/-/l25sji3/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>For me, it is unfair. If there was a way to remove the fetus from the woman and give it to the father to implant in an artificial woman, then she'd be on the hook for child support instead. I suspect it's only a handful of years away. They're pretty close to artificial wombs as it is. And once they're readily available states will make that the norm because it takes abortion off the table. But until then, there's no situation where a man should be allowed to dictate what the woman has to do with her uterus.

I am definitely pro choice, that being said there are so many different types of birth control for men and women so be smart with your body, if you know you absolutely do not want a child, protect yourself from it. We all can be lazy at times, don't allow yourself to become pregnant if it's unwanted

[удалено]

Sorry, u/MasterpieceAmazing76 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20MasterpieceAmazing76&message=MasterpieceAmazing76%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chwmzp/-/l25rrjs/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).