5 ms·

> If men do not want kids, it is easy for them not to. Weird to see the "your CHOICE was when you CHOSE to have sex!" anti-abortion argument re-purposed in thi

by bamfly 3y ago

> If men do not want kids, it is easy for them not to. Weird to see the "your CHOICE was when you CHOSE to have sex!" anti-abortion argument re-purposed in this way, but, OK.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Not really, as a woman’s pregnancy affects her body and life quite a bit more drastically than it affects a man. Ideally, men would be equal in this regard, but nature does not work like that so we have to work with what we have. If you can come up with a better solution that does not violate a woman’s autonomy over their body and also does not let men off the hook for providing for their kids, I am all ears (or eyes I guess). Perhaps the government provides for everyone’s kids?
- bamfly 3y ago
  Oh, I agree it's complex and there are meaningful differences in how the whole pregnancy thing is experienced, and that the needs of kids maybe should override weird selfish libertarian-adjacent "pft, totally unfair to make me pay for any of this!" attitudes (cases of actual fraud being... another matter, potentially). I was just caught off guard by that particular argument being employed in that way. "Well it's easy for a man to simply not have sex, if they don't want kids they shouldn't have sex, that's the end of that" is... not usually well-received (and shouldn't be) when the positions are reversed, even when the context is entirely about consensual sex.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > even when the context is entirely about consensual sex. I thought this context was about ensuring women have access to over the counter birth control, which can be a benefit in the case of consensual and non consensual sexual. Especially in non consensual sex.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  > , as a woman’s pregnancy affects her body and life quite a bit more drastically than it affects a man. Until he's hit with life time payments for a child they agreed would be aborted, and he's thrown in jail for not paying it.

by bamfly 3y ago

> If men do not want kids, it is easy for them not to. Weird to see the "your CHOICE was when you CHOSE to have sex!" anti-abortion argument re-purposed in this way, but, OK.

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Not really, as a woman’s pregnancy affects her body and life quite a bit more drastically than it affects a man. Ideally, men would be equal in this regard, but nature does not work like that so we have to work with what we have. If you can come up with a better solution that does not violate a woman’s autonomy over their body and also does not let men off the hook for providing for their kids, I am all ears (or eyes I guess). Perhaps the government provides for everyone’s kids?

bamfly 3y ago
Oh, I agree it's complex and there are meaningful differences in how the whole pregnancy thing is experienced, and that the needs of kids maybe should override weird selfish libertarian-adjacent "pft, totally unfair to make me pay for any of this!" attitudes (cases of actual fraud being... another matter, potentially). I was just caught off guard by that particular argument being employed in that way. "Well it's easy for a man to simply not have sex, if they don't want kids they shouldn't have sex, that's the end of that" is... not usually well-received (and shouldn't be) when the positions are reversed, even when the context is entirely about consensual sex.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > even when the context is entirely about consensual sex. I thought this context was about ensuring women have access to over the counter birth control, which can be a benefit in the case of consensual and non consensual sexual. Especially in non consensual sex.
maerF0x0 3y ago
> , as a woman’s pregnancy affects her body and life quite a bit more drastically than it affects a man. Until he's hit with life time payments for a child they agreed would be aborted, and he's thrown in jail for not paying it.