5 ms·

In a better world it would be sensible to allow the guy to split without child support and so on if he didn’t want the child, but in the real world that would e

In a better world it would be sensible to allow the guy to split without child support and so on if he didn’t want the child, but in the real world that would end up hurting a lot of people and birthing lots of kids into poverty. Whether you think that’s worth it is up to you. Abortion as a right is thinking of abortion as a medical procedure that people have the right to access. Universal access, but men don’t tend to utilize it. It really is an important thing to be able to manage pregnancy. Pregnancy is exceptionally brutal on the body and causes innumerable permanent changes. I think it makes sense as an emergency fallback when other preventative methods fail.

ajsnigrutin 2y ago
Considering we allow women to have abortions for arbitrary reasons, which include financial and any other non-medical, a paper abortion for men would make things a lot more equal.
- milesrout 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - anonym29 2y ago
    If the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, the man "loses" - the child gets aborted. If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, the man "loses" - he is forced to pay child support. I have brought this up to feminists who have tended to respond just like the above: "if men don't want the financial risk, then they shouldn't be having sex", but that is itself a sexist sentiment that indirectly and unintentionally conveys the idea that women should have the "right" to have sex without having to worry about the financial risks of raising a child (women can always elect to abort if an unwanted pregnancy occurs - well, at least until recently in some states that are a bit backwards on women's rights), but that men should not have that same right (men should either remain sexless or be forced, at gunpoint by the state if necessary, to bear the financial costs of siring a child - men have zero rights, zero say, zero influence, zero protection if an unwanted pregnancy occurs). I believe everyone should have the same rights. Women should be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child. Men should also be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child. The current situation creates a power imbalance where women who do want children can financially railroad their male sex partners who do not want children. If it is not fair to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, why is it fair to force a man to pay for raising a child he does not want? Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men. Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right? So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women? >You do the crime, you do the time. Don't want kids? Don't have sex. If having sex with someone who isn't on the same page as you about having kids is a "crime", why are women (almost) always exonerated from the consequences while the men are (almost) always guilty and (almost) always forced to bear the consequences? Why the double standard? And for what it's worth: I am firmly pro choice. The solution to inequality is ALWAYS to increase the rights of the "losing" side of the power imbalance, NEVER to take rights away from the "winning" side.
    - milesrout 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - shadowgovt 2y ago
        Miscarriage is the end of 15-20% of pregnancies. Nature does not seem to agree that "killing people" is wrong.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
anonym29 2y ago
I recognize that kids in poverty is not a desirable outcome. That said, I'd also point out that 18 years of child support (which many states assign as an uncapped percentage of the man's income - not based on what it actually costs to feed, clothe, house, and support a child) is exceptionally brutal on the finances and causes permanent financial loss that many men never financially recover from. That is not a desirable outcome either - especially for high-income men who may end up risking child support payments in excess of the total gross income of the average person. Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men. Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right? So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  The double standard is because of the difference in practical consequences. I’m inclined to agree with you on principle, but it would be extremely harmful in practice. I think the move is to change society so that it would be less harmful, eg provide tons of government support to parents.
  - anonym29 2y ago
    If the consequences for following through with a poorly-planned pregnancy are so tragically high for the children, why do we not simply restrict and have licensing requirements for the privilege to have children? We use the power of the state to protect kids from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, mature content, etc. Why not use the power of the state to protect kids from poverty? We don't let people operate automobiles on public roads, forklifts, practice medicine, sell insurance, manage investments, perform plumbing work, become a teacher, or even become a surveyor, an interior designer, or a hairdresser in many states without an evaluation of their competency and license from the state, why should the ability to become a parent be treated with less scrutiny than the ability to become a hairdresser or an interior designer? If harm reduction is the primary operating principle here, isn't the unrestricted ability to have kids in direct opposition to that goal? There are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to parent (physically abusing kids, starving them, emotionally neglecting them, etc) just as there are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to operate a car (not following speed limits, not following traffic control devices, reckless driving), no? Why is it perfectly fine for the state to restrict someone from selling insurance on the grounds of harm reduction, while there are no state restrictions whatsoever on parenthood?

ajsnigrutin 2y ago

Considering we allow women to have abortions for arbitrary reasons, which include financial and any other non-medical, a paper abortion for men would make things a lot more equal.

milesrout 2y ago
[flagged]
- anonym29 2y ago
  If the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, the man "loses" - the child gets aborted. If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, the man "loses" - he is forced to pay child support. I have brought this up to feminists who have tended to respond just like the above: "if men don't want the financial risk, then they shouldn't be having sex", but that is itself a sexist sentiment that indirectly and unintentionally conveys the idea that women should have the "right" to have sex without having to worry about the financial risks of raising a child (women can always elect to abort if an unwanted pregnancy occurs - well, at least until recently in some states that are a bit backwards on women's rights), but that men should not have that same right (men should either remain sexless or be forced, at gunpoint by the state if necessary, to bear the financial costs of siring a child - men have zero rights, zero say, zero influence, zero protection if an unwanted pregnancy occurs). I believe everyone should have the same rights. Women should be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child. Men should also be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child. The current situation creates a power imbalance where women who do want children can financially railroad their male sex partners who do not want children. If it is not fair to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, why is it fair to force a man to pay for raising a child he does not want? Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men. Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right? So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women? >You do the crime, you do the time. Don't want kids? Don't have sex. If having sex with someone who isn't on the same page as you about having kids is a "crime", why are women (almost) always exonerated from the consequences while the men are (almost) always guilty and (almost) always forced to bear the consequences? Why the double standard? And for what it's worth: I am firmly pro choice. The solution to inequality is ALWAYS to increase the rights of the "losing" side of the power imbalance, NEVER to take rights away from the "winning" side.
  - milesrout 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      Miscarriage is the end of 15-20% of pregnancies. Nature does not seem to agree that "killing people" is wrong.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

anonym29 2y ago

I recognize that kids in poverty is not a desirable outcome. That said, I'd also point out that 18 years of child support (which many states assign as an uncapped percentage of the man's income - not based on what it actually costs to feed, clothe, house, and support a child) is exceptionally brutal on the finances and causes permanent financial loss that many men never financially recover from. That is not a desirable outcome either - especially for high-income men who may end up risking child support payments in excess of the total gross income of the average person. Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men. Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right? So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
The double standard is because of the difference in practical consequences. I’m inclined to agree with you on principle, but it would be extremely harmful in practice. I think the move is to change society so that it would be less harmful, eg provide tons of government support to parents.
- anonym29 2y ago
  If the consequences for following through with a poorly-planned pregnancy are so tragically high for the children, why do we not simply restrict and have licensing requirements for the privilege to have children? We use the power of the state to protect kids from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, mature content, etc. Why not use the power of the state to protect kids from poverty? We don't let people operate automobiles on public roads, forklifts, practice medicine, sell insurance, manage investments, perform plumbing work, become a teacher, or even become a surveyor, an interior designer, or a hairdresser in many states without an evaluation of their competency and license from the state, why should the ability to become a parent be treated with less scrutiny than the ability to become a hairdresser or an interior designer? If harm reduction is the primary operating principle here, isn't the unrestricted ability to have kids in direct opposition to that goal? There are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to parent (physically abusing kids, starving them, emotionally neglecting them, etc) just as there are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to operate a car (not following speed limits, not following traffic control devices, reckless driving), no? Why is it perfectly fine for the state to restrict someone from selling insurance on the grounds of harm reduction, while there are no state restrictions whatsoever on parenthood?