11 ms·

> Women who abandon children after birth still face consequences. If they abandon them "literally", sure. If they decide they don't want to care for the child

> Women who abandon children after birth still face consequences. If they abandon them "literally", sure. If they decide they don't want to care for the child and give it up for adoption, they don't face any. After a popped condom, they have many different ways to get rid of unwanted children, from a day after pill (plan B), to adoption after birth. A man is always one bad condom away from 20+ (up to 26 years in my country) of child support for an unwanted kid, while a woman has all the decision power to bring (or not bring) the child to life.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Men don't have nearly the same biological or societal obligations, should a condom fail. The law may compensate. Those who think this is still unfair have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence. And they can negotiate with their partners about other forms of contraception.
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > Men don't have nearly the same biological or societal obligations, should a condom fail. The law may compensate. Neither do women, if they don't want to, day-after pills are cheap, and even free in many countries, so are abortions (USA might be an exception here). Having a child in current times is a choice. > have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence So do women. But if that fails, they have more options to still not-have a baby (to take a day-after pill/planB or abort...). In my country, vasectomy is even illegal before age 35 (same for women, no permanent steriliziation before that). The "if you don't want children, don't have sex" sounds very anti-abortionist to me... but to you, it seems fine, if it's targeted towards men.
  - peteforde 4y ago
    The problem with the position that you're attempting to justify is that you are creating a false dichotomy; aggrieved men cannot have sex without responsibility and so you feel it's within reasonable purview to apply arbitrary restrictions on what a women can do with their body. I don't have to like your opinion, and I don't have much confidence that anyone here will change it. However, the reason I spoke up in the first place was to point out that the first step towards bodily autonomy is the acknowledgement of basic human equality. The assertion that [you/men/the state] should have any input in whether to "allow" someone to make adult decisions about their body because of their sex is repugnant. Go fight for men's rights, if you feel that is what you need to do... but leave women out of it. The opposite of women's rights is not men's rights.
    - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
      > The assertion that [you/men/the state] should have any input in whether to "allow" someone to make adult decisions about their body because of their sex is repugnant. You're changing my words here, I never said any of that, you know what I meant, and you're trying to make me look like a sexist by misrepresenting what I said, so don't. A paper abortion is giving up all the rights and obligation toward the kid ON PAPER. You just sign a document. The woman still has all the body autonomy and all the options, from a day after pill, abortion, adoption or raising the kid if she wants. Yes, men should have rights too, both reproductive ones (paper abortions) and body autonomy (not being forced to die in a war). So don't be a sexist.
jemmyw 4y ago
> If they abandon them "literally", sure. If they decide they don't want to care for the child and give it up for adoption, they don't face any The parent meant that carrying a baby to term has consequences for women's health regardless of what happens to the child afterwards. There are short term, long term and permanent physical and mental (via physical hormone changes) effects. Especially if a cesarean is needed, recovery can take a long time.

paulryanrogers 4y ago

Men don't have nearly the same biological or societal obligations, should a condom fail. The law may compensate. Those who think this is still unfair have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence. And they can negotiate with their partners about other forms of contraception.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago
> Men don't have nearly the same biological or societal obligations, should a condom fail. The law may compensate. Neither do women, if they don't want to, day-after pills are cheap, and even free in many countries, so are abortions (USA might be an exception here). Having a child in current times is a choice. > have other means besides condoms alone: withdrawal, vasectomy, alternative acts, even abstinence So do women. But if that fails, they have more options to still not-have a baby (to take a day-after pill/planB or abort...). In my country, vasectomy is even illegal before age 35 (same for women, no permanent steriliziation before that). The "if you don't want children, don't have sex" sounds very anti-abortionist to me... but to you, it seems fine, if it's targeted towards men.
- peteforde 4y ago
  The problem with the position that you're attempting to justify is that you are creating a false dichotomy; aggrieved men cannot have sex without responsibility and so you feel it's within reasonable purview to apply arbitrary restrictions on what a women can do with their body. I don't have to like your opinion, and I don't have much confidence that anyone here will change it. However, the reason I spoke up in the first place was to point out that the first step towards bodily autonomy is the acknowledgement of basic human equality. The assertion that [you/men/the state] should have any input in whether to "allow" someone to make adult decisions about their body because of their sex is repugnant. Go fight for men's rights, if you feel that is what you need to do... but leave women out of it. The opposite of women's rights is not men's rights.
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    > The assertion that [you/men/the state] should have any input in whether to "allow" someone to make adult decisions about their body because of their sex is repugnant. You're changing my words here, I never said any of that, you know what I meant, and you're trying to make me look like a sexist by misrepresenting what I said, so don't. A paper abortion is giving up all the rights and obligation toward the kid ON PAPER. You just sign a document. The woman still has all the body autonomy and all the options, from a day after pill, abortion, adoption or raising the kid if she wants. Yes, men should have rights too, both reproductive ones (paper abortions) and body autonomy (not being forced to die in a war). So don't be a sexist.

jemmyw 4y ago

> If they abandon them "literally", sure. If they decide they don't want to care for the child and give it up for adoption, they don't face any The parent meant that carrying a baby to term has consequences for women's health regardless of what happens to the child afterwards. There are short term, long term and permanent physical and mental (via physical hormone changes) effects. Especially if a cesarean is needed, recovery can take a long time.