4 ms·

If it's just about money: abortion is probably cheaper than raising a child, not just for the parents but also for the government.

ameister14 4y ago
Sure, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with a father's supposed right to abandon a child he doesn't want. Actually, I think I sorta see what you're driving at - 'if it's just about money, forcing women to have a medical procedure at a man's choice is cheaper' The problem with that is it's unethical and morally wrong to do that. If you are more responsible for the existence of a child than I am, by virtue of having fathered the child, why should I have to pay and you not have to pay? That's what it comes down to, not 'what is the cheapest thing to do.'
- jaywalk 4y ago
  How about the scenario where the man wants the child, but the woman doesn't? Do you not see the absolute imbalance here, where the woman gets to decide everything? If the man bears some responsibility (and he absolutely does) why does he get zero say in anything?
  - ameister14 4y ago
    He got some say (except in cases of rape) during the initial kick-off event where the pregnancy began. After that, yeah, his part in equal or majority decision-making is complete. This is because the mother has a greater interest by virtue of the pregnancy occurring to their body and not the father's. Now, if the fetus was developing in some sort of mechanical womb, sure, he'd still have an equal say.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    The injustice is biological; the man can't carry the child and this doesn't confer on him the power to determine what another person does with their body. Nothing else works in the way you're proposing. If someone could save your child's life by submitting to a harmless procedure, giving blood say, you can't compel them to. It's easily recognizable as morally wrong for them to let your child die, but we also recognize that they have that right as an extension of their rights of bodily autonomy. You can argue that life's demands do incur this responsibility on others, and the rightful role of the state is to enforce it. I think that's fairly radical and would oppose it, but it is consistent. It would also open the door to all kinds of atrocities, like medical experiments on nonconsenting individuals for the good of others.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      I am not saying that a man should be able to force a woman to get an abortion. I am 100% against that, just to be clear. But I also don't believe that carrying a child in her womb for nine months should mean that a woman can force a man to give up his bodily autonomy (by being forced to earn and pay money under threat of imprisonment) for 18 years.
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        The man's financial responsibilities are to the child. Neither parent has the right to abdicate their own or the other parent's responsibility there. The mother can make choices as the extension of her bodily autonomy rights that make the responsibility moot. But thinking of this through the frankly mens-rightsy lens of child support is limiting your understanding of the contours of these rights and responsibilities I think.
        klipt 4y ago
        What's wrong with men and women having equal rights? Under the current system a woman can literally rape a man and he still has to pay her child support - and such cases are on the judicial record: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3201&context=penn_law_review https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... If you don't think that's messed up, well there's probably something wrong with your sense of empathy.
        throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        Living with a soon to be self sustaining tumor that your brain chemicals are telling you to be emotionally attached to for 9mo is an f-ing rounding error compared to the following years that either/both parent will have to expend either directly or indirectly (child support payments) raising the kid. If a woman can unilaterally abdicate her upcoming responsibility to raise a child then a man should be able to abdicate his obligation to raise the thing in a similar manner. Or you can frame it the opposite way. A man should not be able to unilaterally burden a women with the responsibility of raising a kid and a woman should not be able to do the same to a man. It's absolutely mind boggling that you do not see the double standard you are advocating for.
- ohgodplsno 4y ago
  - ameister14 4y ago
    There's a lot to unpack here. I don't think that the male half of the population is routinely seen as 'breeders,' that's a new one for me. Yes, you run a risk when you have sex with someone that can get pregnant and yes, that risk does not take into account your financial situation. None of that has to do with access to abortion for the impregnator. They don't get abortions. Yeah, I don't want my taxes going to that either. I don't really understand your point - one wrong thing exists and so we must allow other preventable wrongs to occur? Why? How about we both don't allow parents to financially abandon their children and we stop bombing brown kids?
    - ohgodplsno 4y ago
      Your entire argument is an attempt to spin something that is widely seen as necessary, that is, access to abortion, into a side discussion about your personal dislike for not paying for your kids. Aside from being a pretty awful parallel to make, giving people access to only having the kids they want lowers the chance of them financially abandoning them.
      - ameister14 4y ago
        I believe you have wildly misunderstood my entire argument. I was attempting to respond to something I have seen argued many times by men, including the literal comment I replied to here, which I paraphrase as 'if a woman gets to abort then a man should also get a say and so should be able to financially abort.' I disagree with this, a woman should be able to get an abortion but a man should not 'in the interest of fairness' get a right to financially abrogate their responsibility. It's not a man's right to choose.

ameister14 4y ago

Sure, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with a father's supposed right to abandon a child he doesn't want. Actually, I think I sorta see what you're driving at - 'if it's just about money, forcing women to have a medical procedure at a man's choice is cheaper' The problem with that is it's unethical and morally wrong to do that. If you are more responsible for the existence of a child than I am, by virtue of having fathered the child, why should I have to pay and you not have to pay? That's what it comes down to, not 'what is the cheapest thing to do.'

jaywalk 4y ago
How about the scenario where the man wants the child, but the woman doesn't? Do you not see the absolute imbalance here, where the woman gets to decide everything? If the man bears some responsibility (and he absolutely does) why does he get zero say in anything?
- ameister14 4y ago
  He got some say (except in cases of rape) during the initial kick-off event where the pregnancy began. After that, yeah, his part in equal or majority decision-making is complete. This is because the mother has a greater interest by virtue of the pregnancy occurring to their body and not the father's. Now, if the fetus was developing in some sort of mechanical womb, sure, he'd still have an equal say.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  The injustice is biological; the man can't carry the child and this doesn't confer on him the power to determine what another person does with their body. Nothing else works in the way you're proposing. If someone could save your child's life by submitting to a harmless procedure, giving blood say, you can't compel them to. It's easily recognizable as morally wrong for them to let your child die, but we also recognize that they have that right as an extension of their rights of bodily autonomy. You can argue that life's demands do incur this responsibility on others, and the rightful role of the state is to enforce it. I think that's fairly radical and would oppose it, but it is consistent. It would also open the door to all kinds of atrocities, like medical experiments on nonconsenting individuals for the good of others.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    I am not saying that a man should be able to force a woman to get an abortion. I am 100% against that, just to be clear. But I also don't believe that carrying a child in her womb for nine months should mean that a woman can force a man to give up his bodily autonomy (by being forced to earn and pay money under threat of imprisonment) for 18 years.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      The man's financial responsibilities are to the child. Neither parent has the right to abdicate their own or the other parent's responsibility there. The mother can make choices as the extension of her bodily autonomy rights that make the responsibility moot. But thinking of this through the frankly mens-rightsy lens of child support is limiting your understanding of the contours of these rights and responsibilities I think.
      - klipt 4y ago
        What's wrong with men and women having equal rights? Under the current system a woman can literally rape a man and he still has to pay her child support - and such cases are on the judicial record: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3201&context=penn_law_review https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... If you don't think that's messed up, well there's probably something wrong with your sense of empathy.
      - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
        Living with a soon to be self sustaining tumor that your brain chemicals are telling you to be emotionally attached to for 9mo is an f-ing rounding error compared to the following years that either/both parent will have to expend either directly or indirectly (child support payments) raising the kid. If a woman can unilaterally abdicate her upcoming responsibility to raise a child then a man should be able to abdicate his obligation to raise the thing in a similar manner. Or you can frame it the opposite way. A man should not be able to unilaterally burden a women with the responsibility of raising a kid and a woman should not be able to do the same to a man. It's absolutely mind boggling that you do not see the double standard you are advocating for.
ohgodplsno 4y ago
- ameister14 4y ago
  There's a lot to unpack here. I don't think that the male half of the population is routinely seen as 'breeders,' that's a new one for me. Yes, you run a risk when you have sex with someone that can get pregnant and yes, that risk does not take into account your financial situation. None of that has to do with access to abortion for the impregnator. They don't get abortions. Yeah, I don't want my taxes going to that either. I don't really understand your point - one wrong thing exists and so we must allow other preventable wrongs to occur? Why? How about we both don't allow parents to financially abandon their children and we stop bombing brown kids?
  - ohgodplsno 4y ago
    Your entire argument is an attempt to spin something that is widely seen as necessary, that is, access to abortion, into a side discussion about your personal dislike for not paying for your kids. Aside from being a pretty awful parallel to make, giving people access to only having the kids they want lowers the chance of them financially abandoning them.
    - ameister14 4y ago
      I believe you have wildly misunderstood my entire argument. I was attempting to respond to something I have seen argued many times by men, including the literal comment I replied to here, which I paraphrase as 'if a woman gets to abort then a man should also get a say and so should be able to financially abort.' I disagree with this, a woman should be able to get an abortion but a man should not 'in the interest of fairness' get a right to financially abrogate their responsibility. It's not a man's right to choose.