Current Events > Dave Chappelle on Abortion If you can kill them I can at least abandon him

(+) Yeah! (+)

I don't think Dave was trying to be agreed with... he was being funny, lol.

I'm not even gonna ask "which part did you agree with," lolololol
---

He's correct

hockeybub89 posted...

As soon as men get pregnant, they can make such decisions.

A born baby needs support and if we want the father to be able to opt out and don't want people to suck off the state's teat, then who is funding these children? I hear children shouldn't pay for the mistakes of their parents, so is it right to force them to be raised on a single paycheck in a broken home?

Unknown5uspect posted...

emblem boy posted...

Seems like part of the issue is people are seeing the child support payments as punishment to themselves. Which I don't think is the right way to see it

These are people that are perfectly fine with the idea of abandoning their own progeny out of sheer selfishness. Of course they see it that way.

How else are you supposed to view it when only one side has to care about the kid.
---

The topic of responsibility for the child and the topic of the mother's autonomy shouldn't be correlated. Two people bring the child into the world, so they both have responsibility for it unless one decides to take on full responsibility in a mutual decision (or one runs away to never be seen again). The ability for the woman to abort the child is completely separate from that, as she is the one burdened with carrying it for nearly a year. I think in general abortion is a bad thing that should be avoided outside of extreme circumstances, but it's a necessary choice to have all the same.

Hinakuluiau posted...

The issue is that it's being framed as father vs mother rather than about the child.
A woman gets the choice to abort because she shouldn't be forced to carry a fetus for 9 months if she doesn't want to. A man doesn't get to control her body so he gets no say here. Whereas with child support, the problem lies with the needs of the child.

Hang on, hang on. Where are these "needs of the child" when the innocent baby is being murdered in the womb?
---

I don't understand why Stephen Colbert is such a leftie on CBS. He was spouting right wing talking points on his previous show.

Sarcasm just in case
---

gmanthebest posted...

Wii_Shaker posted...

The joke premise is funny and it really flips the anti-abortion argument on it's head in an interesting new way.

Basically he's saying that women should have control over their reproductive rights. He's also saying that if the woman decides to keep the child, the man shouldn't be the one to pay for the child's upbringing (if he chooses the right to abandon the child).

It's a very tactful joke. Remember that all of this is hypothetical and it is afterall a joke.

Exactly, all fine and good for a joke. It's when idiots start taking the joke seriously and don't want to help support a life they created, then it's a problem.

So it's fine when the woman doesn't want to support a life they created, but not the man?

*Unwanted pregnancy happens*

Woman: "But but but I can't have a baby now! I'm still in college and don't have my career path set up to be able to support a child yet!"

Society: "Oh well then pay us 700 dollars and we'll take care of it. Or if that route doesn't appeal to you, you can literally drop the baby off at any local fire department no questions asked and voluntarily walk away."

Then on the other side:

*Unwanted pregnancy happens*

Man: "But but but I can't have a baby now! I'm still in college and don't have my career path set up to be able to support a child yet!"

Society: "Well you should have thought about that before you had sex! Now pay up for the next 18 years, deadbeat!"

Man: "But what if I choose to voluntarily walk away?"

Society: "Still your sperm! Pay up!"

Yep, no double standard there at all.

I'm pretty liberal in my beliefs, and I support a women's right to choose wholeheartedly. But I also believe a man should have a right to choose too. If you want to talk about true equality between the sexes you have to talk about all aspects of it.

Who knows, it might make people actually be a bit more selective about who they cum inside/let cum inside them.
---

Abortion must be allowed because nobody is required to donate their body to another human, not because women deserve the ability to give up parental obligation. The fact that the latter comes with the former doesn't then mean that men should also be able to give up parental obligation.

I'm not saying that it's not a discussion worth having, but trying to tie it to abortion is and has always been dishonest.

Hinakuluiau posted...

The issue is that it's being framed as father vs mother rather than about the child.
A woman gets the choice to abort because she shouldn't be forced to carry a fetus for 9 months if she doesn't want to. A man doesn't get to control her body so he gets no say here. Whereas with child support, the problem lies with the needs of the child. A child should be able to get adequate funds and access to clothes, housing, food, etc. that it would if both parents were able to get along.

If we could increase our social safety nets to similar levels such as Denmark and Sweden (two countries that have some measurable support for such a thing), then I would support it. But given the general shittiness that is American welfare, the needs of the child supplant that of the fathers.

A great nuanced post. The people who want equality on this are unfortunately out of luck because nature decided women carry the child and not both.
---

mybbqrules posted...

gmanthebest posted...

Wii_Shaker posted...

The joke premise is funny and it really flips the anti-abortion argument on it's head in an interesting new way.

Basically he's saying that women should have control over their reproductive rights. He's also saying that if the woman decides to keep the child, the man shouldn't be the one to pay for the child's upbringing (if he chooses the right to abandon the child).

It's a very tactful joke. Remember that all of this is hypothetical and it is afterall a joke.

Exactly, all fine and good for a joke. It's when idiots start taking the joke seriously and don't want to help support a life they created, then it's a problem.

So it's fine when the woman doesn't want to support a life they created, but not the man?

*Unwanted pregnancy happens*

Woman: "But but but I can't have a baby now! I'm still in college and don't have my career path set up to be able to support a child yet!"

Society: "Oh well then pay us 700 dollars and we'll take care of it. Or if that route doesn't appeal to you, you can literally drop the baby off at any local fire department no questions asked and voluntarily walk away."

Then on the other side:

*Unwanted pregnancy happens*

Man: "But but but I can't have a baby now! I'm still in college and don't have my career path set up to be able to support a child yet!"

Society: "Well you should have thought about that before you had sex! Now pay up for the next 18 years, deadbeat!"

Man: "But what if I choose to voluntarily walk away?"

Society: "Still your sperm! Pay up!"

Yep, no double standard there at all.

I'm pretty liberal in my beliefs, and I support a women's right to choose wholeheartedly. But I also believe a man should have a right to choose too. If you want to talk about true equality between the sexes you have to talk about all aspects of it.

Who knows, it might make people actually be a bit more selective about who they cum inside/let cum inside them.

Men and women will never be 100% truly equal in all aspects. Give and take. If you create a life with someone (consentually), you have an obligation to help take care of that life. Just the way it is.
---

mybbqrules posted...

Yep, no double standard there at all.

That's what you don't fucking get. Of course it's a double standard. Tough. Titty. It ain't fair. Life ain't fair. Take care of your fucking kids.

GregShmedley posted...

I liked that joke as well and agree 100% with it.

Same

I am pro-choice. And my girlfriend has already decided that she will get an abortion if she got pregnant at this time--I'd honestly want her to keep it. But it's not my decision.

However, if she did decide to keep it and I want nothing to do with raising it, I should legally be allowed to sign away any financial obligations. The whole "well that's the biological lottery and she gets that choice because she carries it" is a bullshit justification to hold a man financially hostage for a child he doesn't want for 18 years.

Uhhhh why are you in a relationship with someone who will kill your baby if you get her pregnant even though you want a child?

Why be with someone who doesn't want the same thing?
---

The government doesnt want to take on financing the child of every deadbeat absent father.

So if youre worried about unwanted kids, wrap it up.

Unknown5uspect posted...

mybbqrules posted...

Yep, no double standard there at all.

Take care of your fucking kids.

Nope, fuck that noise.

It's still her choice, but I would make it abundantly clear that one of those choices is objectively going to be bad for both of us.
---

mybbqrules posted...

Yep, no double standard there at all.

You're right, there isn't, because body autonomy is a thing.

Crepes posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

The issue is that it's being framed as father vs mother rather than about the child.
A woman gets the choice to abort because she shouldn't be forced to carry a fetus for 9 months if she doesn't want to. A man doesn't get to control her body so he gets no say here. Whereas with child support, the problem lies with the needs of the child. A child should be able to get adequate funds and access to clothes, housing, food, etc. that it would if both parents were able to get along.

If we could increase our social safety nets to similar levels such as Denmark and Sweden (two countries that have some measurable support for such a thing), then I would support it. But given the general shittiness that is American welfare, the needs of the child supplant that of the fathers.

A great nuanced post. The people who want equality on this are unfortunately out of luck because nature decided women carry the child and not both.

I agree, a pretty solid post.
---

Sounds like this Dave Chapelle person is wrong and not funny. He should do stand up.
---

I don't know if he's wrong or right...but I laughed.
---

nemu posted...

The ability for the woman to abort the child is completely separate from that, as she is the one burdened with carrying it for nearly a year.

Crepes posted...

The people who want equality on this are unfortunately out of luck because nature decided women carry the child and not both.

...unless she aborts, rendering this whole line of "reasoning", again, disingenuous at best.
---

Imagine unironically saying "tough shit" and "genetic lottery" stuff as if thats not a horrible horrible mindset applied to nearly anything in society.

"Tough shit, you weren't born with the socially accepted skin color. Better luck next time. Deal with it."

Child support isnt a biological function, its a social construct. That doesnt mean its any less important, but theres picking and choosing going on in some of the points being discussed in this topic.
---

paerarru posted...

And on the subject of "it's just a joke", well that's just a stupid thing to say. It's a joke because it's a good point, it's not a joke because it doesn't make sense. You not only missed the joke, you also have a skewed sense of humor if you think this is funny... because it's nonsensical or some other dumb reason like that.

If you want to say that it doesn't make sense, then I'm sorry, you don't get to laugh. You do get to be offended... if you want to? Which is probably what you want anyways. I don't know why, but hey.

But when a comedian is under fire, we all start arguing that a comedian isn't meant to be taken seriously .

Now a comedian is funny because he is serious? Should we ignore what comedians have to say or take them as valid worldviews?
---

fenderbender321 posted...

I hope everyone realizes that Chapelle is a comedian who was doing a bit when he said this. He isn't a politician running for office telling us what laws he is going to pass. He is a person telling jokes. He is offering a funny perspective on the matter.

It seems like these days people are having a hard time understanding the difference. I don't honestly think that it should be the law that men have the right to abandon their child. But I laughed anyway, because I like jokes.

Ignoring all the specifics of this joke, this makes it sound like you just laugh at all jokes. Because comedians are paid to tell jokes and jokes are supposed to be laughed at. Do you clap at the end of all movies and bob your head to all music as well? Because entertainment is supposed to be entertaining and therefore you are entertained?
---

This makes no sense, but it uses one of the worst words ever. And judging by the room's reaction, it went over really well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCHGr4JoEZE" data-time="
---

hockeybub89 posted...

But when a comedian is under fire, we all start arguing that a comedian isn't meant to be taken seriously .

Now a comedian is funny because he is serious? Should we ignore what comedians have to say or take them as valid worldviews?

Some comedians are funny by being "serious", which doesn't mean they're trying to be taken seriously, they're just making good points. Reality is funny sometimes, and those comedians are just exposing reality.

Some comedians are funny by being silly. They're also not trying to be taken seriously, and the points they're making are supposed to be ridiculous. Ridiculous things can also be funny.

Now, different people may find something funny for different reasons, or for several reasons, sure, but if you find something "serious" funny because you think it's supposed to be silly, that's just missing the joke, to say the least.
---

Jerry_Hellyeah posted...

Imagine unironically saying "tough shit" and "genetic lottery" stuff as if thats not a horrible horrible mindset applied to nearly anything in society.

Yeah, let's make it okay to basically turn your children into wards of the state because you don't wanna take responsibility for bringing them into the world.

But I have the horrible mindset.

And good job with the dumbass analogy.

Unknown5uspect posted...

Yeah, let's make it okay to basically turn your children into wards of the state because you don't wanna take responsibility for bringing them into the world.

Yeah why turn your children into wards of the state when it's perfectly okay to just murder them while they're still in the womb because you don't wanna take responsibility for bringing them into the world. Duh.
---

Nobody is required to donate their body to another human. People may be required to provide financially for their child.

Note how these two things are entirely different.

no point in engaging people who will deliberately misconstrue everything you say that isn't in complete agreement with whatever they want.
---

I wish more time was actually spent educating both genders in regards to preventing these predicaments from happening in the first place.
---

Agreed. The government should give parents enough no strings attached money that it doesn't matter if the baby has two parents that are actively involved in their life

---

Balrog0 posted...

Agreed. The government should give parents enough no strings attached money that it doesn't matter if the baby has two parents that are actively involved in their life

What, like Finland's "baby box"?

I will buy things for the child but no way would I hand over money to the mom.
---

DarkProto05 posted...

I will buy things for the child but no way would I hand over money to the mom.

You won't be given a choice, nor should you.

OctilIery posted...

DarkProto05 posted...

I will buy things for the child but no way would I hand over money to the mom.

You won't be given a choice, nor should you.

She can try by paying hefty lawyer and court fees. I'll get a great lawyer.
---

DarkProto05 posted...

OctilIery posted...

DarkProto05 posted...

I will buy things for the child but no way would I hand over money to the mom.

You won't be given a choice, nor should you.

She can try by paying hefty lawyer and court fees. I'll get a great lawyer.

You'll lose.

Sorry kid, I know it's unfair you're growing up without a dad, but think about how unfair it is that your dad would've had to take care of you!
---

Crepes posted...

Hinakuluiau posted...

The issue is that it's being framed as father vs mother rather than about the child.
A woman gets the choice to abort because she shouldn't be forced to carry a fetus for 9 months if she doesn't want to. A man doesn't get to control her body so he gets no say here. Whereas with child support, the problem lies with the needs of the child. A child should be able to get adequate funds and access to clothes, housing, food, etc. that it would if both parents were able to get along.

If we could increase our social safety nets to similar levels such as Denmark and Sweden (two countries that have some measurable support for such a thing), then I would support it. But given the general shittiness that is American welfare, the needs of the child supplant that of the fathers.

A great nuanced post. The people who want equality on this are unfortunately out of luck because nature decided women carry the child and not both.

Yup. Plus, even if we did have better welfare systems I think it's better to get the parents to have to take care of the kid.

Sorry Chappelle, you lost this one.
---

Population control!!!
Feed the devil all those tasty unborn babies!!!
---

Thats about what Id expect hed say.
---

automatically tag ANYBODY who takes comedians being facetious as serious. whether it be against or in support of the stance.

people have been saying shit like "I agree with Dave" but quickly STFU when asked for specifics, lol

edit: That's not to say that they're never serious. but comedians are low hanging fruit. even murderous kings allowed the jester to jest.
---

Shit was funny man

---

Imagine discussing a comedians jokes as if theyre saying it seriously.
---

GregShmedley posted...

I liked that joke as well and agree 100% with it.

I am pro-choice. And my girlfriend has already decided that she will get an abortion if she got pregnant at this time--I'd honestly want her to keep it. But it's not my decision.

However, if she did decide to keep it and I want nothing to do with raising it, I should legally be allowed to sign away any financial obligations. The whole "well that's the biological lottery and she gets that choice because she carries it" is a bullshit justification to hold a man financially hostage for a child he doesn't want for 18 years.

In that case, should've wrapped up bud.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Abortion and child support are great examples of splitting hairs. For the most part, both sides' opinions and points are very valid.

Laws can't both sides it though. Either abortion is legal or it is illegal. There is no middle ground that isn't logically inconsistent. One side has to lose. One side will always feel like it has lost.
---

DarkRoast posted...

Sorry kid, I know it's unfair you're growing up without a dad, but think about how unfair it is that your dad would've had to take care of you!

---