Current Events > What if a girl wants an abortion but the guy don't?

(+) Yeah! (+)

so he says he stuck up for me. well I don't remember but if he did, why is he now threatening to attack me? I just don't understand.

The man can't just "force" a woman into being unwilling breeding stock. If she wants an abortion, she gets one, and he can't do shit to stop her. End of discussion.

That said, I'm 100% behind the idea of a man being able to completely opt out of child support because it was *her* choice to keep it, not his, so he shouldn't be forced into being an unwilling ATM.
---

Zikten posted...

so he says he stuck up for me. well I don't remember but if he did, why is he now threatening to attack me? I just don't understand.

It was supposed to be absurd.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

How would this work though?

I don't know but it sounds fair.

Asherlee10 posted...

Cocytus posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

How would this work though?

I don't know but it sounds fair.

I don't think we can judge that yet without knowing how it would work.

The idea sounds fair. Making it work would be the next step. It's not like the systems we have in place now are 100% efficient.

Asherlee10 posted...

The Catgirl Fondler posted...

That said, I'm 100% behind the idea of a man being able to completely opt out of child support because it was *her* choice to keep it, not his, so he shouldn't be forced into being an unwilling ATM.

How would this work though? I can see a laundry list of problems.

As mentioned before, this will never be an evenly-matched scenario. The woman's bodily autonomy will take precedence every time. That being said, the issues begin to arise when the father wants to 'opt out.'

She's the one that wanted to keep it, so it falls on her to try and figure out how to take care of it. If that means going to her family for help, or looking into other forms of financial aid, so be it.

The point is that for the sake of fairness, the man has at least one option (to opt out) in lieu of the fact that he can't stop/force her pregnancy otherwise.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

However, I think that we could set up a largely reasonable system where one's finances are not automatically beholden to the bodily autonomy of another.

How would this system work?

I couldn't tell you the exact specifics, but I can tell you how I imagine such a system might generally work.

First, it would be a system based on rescinding parental responsibility and privilege overall. Meaning that it wouldn't just be about child support, it would be about both legal obligation and legal agency regarding the child. Second, in line with the "opt out" phrase, it's something you have by default but then choose to give up.

Obviously, you would probably only ever to be able to create such a system for situations where a pregnancy has already begun. Even in the case of married couples, trying to establish some sort of contract regarding "parental intent" is just a little too difficult, since the whole idea behind this is to not force people into a specific outcome down the road. I firmly believe that nobody should ever be forced to have children.

So, since a pregnancy has already occurred, the question becomes, "How can we give men an option to extricate themselves from the parenthood that they don't want, while also not interfering with the mother's rights to her body as well respecting her own desire to become a parent?" One step, I imagine, would be periodical sessions in which ideally both parents (but especially the man) state whether they wish to retain parental authority over the soon-to-be child or not. The sessions need to start early and there need to be multiple ones (perhaps one per trimester or per month). The decision made during these sessions would need to be binding, and the decision cannot be changed between sessions. This last stipulation might help eliminate the concern over last minute "cold feet."

Another step would include developing the programs which exist (and possibly adding new ones) to help single mothers in cases where financial support from the biological father is no longer an option. Similarly, although it may not be popular, it may also be necessary to introduce a tax or fee of some kind which would be specifically aimed at helping to take care of the country's children. Again, it might not be popular, but I also don't think it unreasonable for a society to impose on its current members to help support the next generation of members.

Furthermore, the system would need to be setup so that not following the appropriate procedure leads to losing one's ability to rescind parental authority. This goes back to the idea of it being given by default, while the option to rescind is where explicit action is required. It also helps to remove some of the ambiguity regarding intent.

And, of course, any kind of agreeable system would not be created overnight, nor would it be created by one person.

Asherlee10 posted...

keep in mind that bodily autonomy takes precedence.

In all honesty, you can simply make it a question of parental authority. Bodily autonomy doesn't really enter the picture so long as the woman is still allowed to choose whether or not to get an abortion.

All she has to say is "it's not your baby *yeet*" and by the time the deed is gone the kid is vacced and disposed
---

There is no solution for these scenarios which will avoid someone crying unfairness. And what we have now is better than any alternative that has been suggested in this topic. So suck it up, men, and stop crying.
---

Itd be kinda fucked if he could just say Nah, youre having this kid

Her body, her choice seems to be the only truly fair route when it comes to pregnancy.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Again, the best case scenario would be for both parties to make a decision together to abort or keep, but both need to live with the decision.

Another thing that's never addressed by these people. A worrying inclination towards turning relationships and pregnancies into extremely adversarial affairs.
---

I'm all for men being able to opt out of child support but only if they relinquish any and all rights to the child. That means they can't see them, claim them in anything, etc.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Some of this is hard to understand, particularly the first 4 paragraphs. In the 5th paragraph you mention government programs funded by taxes. In essence, this is still child support. It seems like it points to the same system of child support we already have, but with extra steps.

I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I'm having trouble following a lot of what's written above.

Child support, I assume, something you would consider necessary. After all, should a father relinquish parental authority, there's a chance there's still a kid and a mother trying to support them. Essentially, the idea that helping to provide for the child would extend to the community as a whole rather than to the individual father who wishes to relinquish his parental rights. Of course, said would still be paying taxes and therefore still contribute to supporting the child, but he would be doing so simply as another member of society and not through his position as the biological father.

As for the rest, the idea behind the system is to establish intent, and provide some limited opportunity for it to change. It needs to be limited so that clear decisions can be established and acted upon. But there still need to be some opportunities so that we can respect (to at least some degree) individuals' ability to choose when they want to become parents. Essentially, it's a compromise given to two individuals who may have a child together, yet have unfortunately different desires regarding parenthood.

Asherlee10 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

keep in mind that bodily autonomy takes precedence.

In all honesty, you can simply make it a question of parental authority. Bodily autonomy doesn't really enter the picture so long as the woman is still allowed to choose whether or not to get an abortion.

I think the parental responsibilities are dependent on whether the woman keeps the baby or not, though.

Again, the best case scenario would be for both parties to make a decision together to abort or keep, but both need to live with the decision.

It's only relevant to the extent that, if the mother chooses to abort, then there's no parental responsibility to be concerned about. But you can still create a system revolving around parental responsibility while not interfering with the issue of abortion via bodily autonomy.

Of course the ideal is that the two make a decision together on their own terms. But the purpose of the system would always be for cases where that's not possible, cases where the two have insurmountably different desires. For example, in the system I imagine, you can choose not engage the system and it won't apply. You will keep parental authority, and all obligations and agency that go with it. If two people decide that they don't need it, then they simply stop participating.

Why is @Zikten having a melty?
---

This is one of the double standards that I soft of accept but don't like. The girl has full rights in regards to the decision of the abortion. If she does have the kid and the man doesn't like it, he has to pay child support. That makes sense, the kid needs support and you're only hurting the kid more by giving the man more freedom to stay far away if he so chose to. But then on the reverse there's the "my body, my rights" argument for the ladies. Don't at all like it, but it saves a number of headaches when it comes to the situations regarding the woman's health being on the line if the pregnancy goes awry among other situations.

Asherlee10 posted...

What in the world are you going on about?

This is just more of your melodrama.

Someone is taking offense to being threatened, joking or not, and you're calling it melodrama. How does this make any sense?
---

Asherlee10 posted...

The Catgirl Fondler posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

The Catgirl Fondler posted...

That said, I'm 100% behind the idea of a man being able to completely opt out of child support because it was *her* choice to keep it, not his, so he shouldn't be forced into being an unwilling ATM.

How would this work though? I can see a laundry list of problems.

As mentioned before, this will never be an evenly-matched scenario. The woman's bodily autonomy will take precedence every time. That being said, the issues begin to arise when the father wants to 'opt out.'

She's the one that wanted to keep it, so it falls on her to try and figure out how to take care of it. If that means going to her family for help, or looking into other forms of financial aid, so be it.

The point is that for the sake of fairness, the man has at least one option (to opt out) in lieu of the fact that he can't stop/force her pregnancy otherwise.

While this may seem like an unfair statement, keep in mind that bodily autonomy takes precedence. It wasn't just her that made the baby. It takes 2 people. The one that has to carry the baby to term or endure the abortion gets 'first pick.' After that, both parties need to live the with the decision.

Ultimately it would be best if both parties made a decision together, but that will not happen every time. Allowing fathers to opt out at any time makes the already shitty scenario even worse.

If she didn't want to end up in a shitty scenario, she should have gotten an abortion instead of thinking the man was going to be a free meal ticket.

At no point did anyone force her to have the kid, it was her choice all the way through. And now that the bodily autonomy issue is over with, she's the one left holding the bag. It is nobody's fault but her own if she didn't consider that when she dived head-first into single motherhood that the father could be an absolute non-factor, finance included.

Either the whole situation needs to be fair to both parties or unfair to both, I refuse to accept any double-standard where either party gets dumped on twice while the other gets off clean.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I think I'll have to come back to this. I am really having a hard time following what you are conveying.

It could be because I'm speaking based on the shift in the conversation to a more general topic rather than the OP itself, so I'll clarify.

On the specific topic of abortion, a guy cannot have any authority over it. Because an abortion is based exclusively on the mother's bodily autonomy.

However, speaking on the topic of situations where the mother wants to be a parent while the father does not, I think we could come up with a system where "intent to be a parent" can be established and, on the basis of that, allow someone to either maintain their parental authority over the soon-to-be child or get rid of it. And, I think we can create a system that allows enough compromise to be considered fair to all parties.

Asherlee10 posted...

Sad_Face posted...

Someone is taking offense to being threatened, joking or not, and you're calling it melodrama. How does this make any sense?

It isn't that he just took offense to it, he went above and beyond to make a big deal out of it when it's pretty obvious the guy wasn't serious.

"Dude don't threaten me. There is no reason for that." is more than enough of a response, or just don't respond to it at all. Zikten has a trend of being melodramatic like that from I can see in other topics.

Some people don't take kindly to being threatened. In real life for me, even if it's a joke, I would act erratically as a reflex reaction. His reaction is fine. You're making a bigger issue than it is.
---

Classic Zikten itt lmao
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

Also, can you just say 'get an abortion' immediately and be able to extract yourself from child support obligations? What exactly is the enforcement of this going to look like

Give a time period of like the first couple months of pregnancy where the guy can opt out of child support and all responsibility of the child. Have him also lose any custody and the ability to see the child without the mothers consent.
---

What if the woman genuinely doesn't know she's pregnant in the first couple months?
---

Key posted...

NinjaBreakfast posted...

Also, can you just say 'get an abortion' immediately and be able to extract yourself from child support obligations? What exactly is the enforcement of this going to look like

Give a time period of like the first couple months of pregnancy where the guy can opt out of child support and all responsibility of the child. Have him also lose any custody and the ability to see the child without the mothers consent.

Ok, so let me break down the pros and cons of your solution.

Pros:
Men have more equality and financial independence.

Cons:
Increased number of dead babies(the mother buckles and has an abortion)
Increased number of children raised in poverty(the mother goes through with the birth and has no support)

What's your preference?
---

Good discussions but I'm more curious what opinions are when it's the complete reverese.

We talked about the women having it when the guy didn't want it. Well I've had an ex get an abortion when I did want the kid.

That kind of skews my opinion and leaves a bad taste in my mouth considering that can happen with someone I really cared about and was invested in but then I could accidentally knock up a one night stand and be on the hook no matter how aborant her personality is. Probably get little to no custody too.

I agree there's no better alternatives I can think of but it's a pretty fucked up situation all around.
---

Her body, her choice, shes not a vessel for your baby. Its something you can certainly discuss, but treating her like a broodmare is gross
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Kavatar posted...

And what we have now is better than any alternative that has been suggested in this topic.

I agree.

Neither of you have explained how having a option for men to opt out of responsibility and custody if the kid is a problem. You've both said you dont like it and it's a problem but haven given a single reason as to why
---

Asherlee10 posted...

I think you're being demonstrably unreasonable about the whole scenario. Supporting a child isn't a 'free meal ticket.'

again with the adversarial thing. People looking at child support as nefarious women living the high life on their downtrodden man's wage but really it's there to help raise a goddamn child smdh.
---

Key posted...

if anything I have more of a problem with the guy not belong able to opt out of child support. If he wants a abortion and she doesnt then that's fine her body her choice whatever but he should be able to opt out of child support

---

Key posted...

Have him also lose any custody and the ability to see the child without the mothers consent.

People say this but how is this a punishment for somebody trying to extract themselves from supporting their child in the first place?

"sure I love you son, I just don't want your nefarious mother getting money to help raise you! Have a good day at your crackden school!"
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

Good discussions but I'm more curious what opinions are when it's the complete reverese.

We talked about the women having it when the guy didn't want it. Well I've had an ex get an abortion when I did want the kid.

That kind of skews my opinion and leaves a bad taste in my mouth considering that can happen with someone I really cared about and was invested in but then I could accidentally knock up a one night stand and be on the hook no matter how aborant her personality is. Probably get little to no custody too.

I agree there's no better alternatives I can think of but it's a pretty fucked up situation all around.

Regarding the topic of abortion, there's simply no way to allow the guy any final say in an abortion. It's impossible. The moral permissibility of abortion, as it stands, is rooted in the idea that the mother has full authority over what goes on in her body. To allow someone else a final say in the matter, even the father, is to undermine that very foundation.

Steve Nick posted...

Key posted...

NinjaBreakfast posted...

Also, can you just say 'get an abortion' immediately and be able to extract yourself from child support obligations? What exactly is the enforcement of this going to look like

Give a time period of like the first couple months of pregnancy where the guy can opt out of child support and all responsibility of the child. Have him also lose any custody and the ability to see the child without the mothers consent.

Ok, so let me break down the pros and cons of your solution.

Pros:
Men have more equality and financial independence.

Cons:
Increased number of dead babies(the mother buckles and has an abortion)
Increased number of children raised in poverty(the mother goes through with the birth and has no support)

What's your preference?

I'd still go with giving men the option to back out. I have no problem with abortion so increased dead babies doesnt bother me. And poverty isn't that bad I grew up in it, single mother and all. Anecdotal evidence aside if she isn't financially ready for the child and chooses to have it despite the father showing he wont support the child that's her choice and she'll have to live with it.
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

Key posted...

Have him also lose any custody and the ability to see the child without the mothers consent.

People say this but how is this a punishment for somebody trying to extract themselves from supporting their child in the first place?

"sure I love you son, I just don't want your nefarious mother getting money to help raise you! Have a good day at your crackden school!"

Well, it's not a punishment, it's a shift in focus. The father "opting out" shouldn't be about child support. It should be about his parental authority, and all the obligations and privileges that it entails.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Zeeak4444 posted...

Good discussions but I'm more curious what opinions are when it's the complete reverese.

We talked about the women having it when the guy didn't want it. Well I've had an ex get an abortion when I did want the kid.

That kind of skews my opinion and leaves a bad taste in my mouth considering that can happen with someone I really cared about and was invested in but then I could accidentally knock up a one night stand and be on the hook no matter how aborant her personality is. Probably get little to no custody too.

I agree there's no better alternatives I can think of but it's a pretty fucked up situation all around.

Regarding the topic of abortion, there's simply no way to allow the guy any final say in an abortion. It's impossible. The moral permissibility of abortion, as it stands, is rooted in the idea that the mother has full authority over what goes on in her body. To allow someone else a final say in the matter, even the father, is to undermine that very foundation.

Don't get me wrong I agree with that. I'm just saying it can certainly suck. Regardless of my opinion we're in a situation where one person will always hold authority over a major decision that impacts two people.

Like I said I don't think there's a better alternative but it's still a shitty situation. If you knock a girl up pray that shit works out and you're both on the same page. That's about all you can do.
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

Key posted...

Have him also lose any custody and the ability to see the child without the mothers consent.

People say this but how is this a punishment for somebody trying to extract themselves from supporting their child in the first place?

"sure I love you son, I just don't want your nefarious mother getting money to help raise you! Have a good day at your crackden school!"

it's not a punishment. it's just more legal follow up to him opting out of having the child. I dknt think there should be any punishment
---

Sad_Face posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Sad_Face posted...

Someone is taking offense to being threatened, joking or not, and you're calling it melodrama. How does this make any sense?

It isn't that he just took offense to it, he went above and beyond to make a big deal out of it when it's pretty obvious the guy wasn't serious.

"Dude don't threaten me. There is no reason for that." is more than enough of a response, or just don't respond to it at all. Zikten has a trend of being melodramatic like that from I can see in other topics.

Some people don't take kindly to being threatened. In real life for me, even if it's a joke, I would act erratically as a reflex reaction. His reaction is fine. You're making a bigger issue than it is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gamefaqs/comments/5l3gse/warned_for_supposedly_insult_jews/
---