Current Events > Thoughts on "Financial Abortions"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Deranged, self-serving babble from garbage tier human minds.

This should happen if the man was like raped, but otherwise, no.

It doesn't require some sort of artificial equalization that does no such thing and just subsidizes men who want to not be responsible for what they have made and instead punishes both the woman and the resulting child.

What it requires is acceptances that there are differences between the sexes and if you are a shitty enough human to be mad about that in the first place, you should just stop being subhuman gutter trash.

What if the woman carries the baby to term, then gives it up for adoption, basically relinquishing her financial responsibilities towards the child?

I don't understand the point you are positioning.

To the best of my knowledge a woman can not simply give up a child for adoption without the consent of the father. Of course there might be situations where locating the father isn't possible and it would be absurd to not grant an adoption for that reason. I imagine there are situations where the father, should he return to the picture, could sue for custody in such a case.

That varies by state, with many siding with the potential mother's rights over the father's, for obvious reasons. Many times it revolves around the father being "unfit", but it still covers that fact that a woman can give up a child for adoption and rid themselves of the financial burden that is raising a child.

I don't understand how this relates to anything.

It's already possible for someone to apply to terminate their parental rights.

But I don't understand the connection between child support and giving a child up for adoption. If you give the child up then the financial responsibility is taken up by other people and the child is not burdened with having lacking financial care.

At least in theory.

The only connection I can see is if the goal of parents having to financially support their child is to punish either parent, rather than to make sure the child is suitably cared for.

Which makes no sense.

Simply put, if a woman feels they aren't ready, emotionally, financially, physically, whatever, to have a child, they can abort it. Should there be a male version of that situation, or is the man on the hook not matter what?

Simply put, if a woman feels they aren't ready, emotionally, financially, physically, whatever, to have a child, they can abort it. Should there be a male version of that situation, or is the man on the hook not matter what?

I mean, they aren't the same thing at all. There's now a child involved in the situation. A child that we should want to take care of.

Like I mentioned I don't agree with that framing. Men can apply birth control. Biological differences dictates when in the process of impregnation and pregnancy it can be applied.

This does not constitute a giant gap of equality between the sexes just because a woman can think it over after the fact.

So, once the "deed is done" the man is on the hook no matter what the woman's decision is?

If both parties agree to it (under no duress) then why not?

However the potential for that to be abused, and single mothers to be abused is massive. There is no way, in our current world, that this would work as intended or go well.

The equivalent option is the same situation in reverse.

Situation 1 (that you are describing) - a woman wants to give up a baby and the father is doesn't want to take it (or as you said earlier, is deemed unfit to do so), someone adopts the baby, and neither parent is financially responsible

Situation 2 (the equal option for a man) - a man wants to give up a baby and the mother is doesn't want to take it, or is deemed unfit to do so, someone adopts the baby, and neither parent is financially responsible

I mean, they aren't the same thing at all. There's now a child involved in the situation. A child that we should want to take care of.

Like I mentioned I don't agree with that framing. Men can apply birth control.

If you decide to stick your dick in something and ejaculate then yes, you're responsible for the consequences that come from it.

Basically, the mother gets to decide whether to ruin him financially or not

That would make sense if they wanted the kid. If they didnt want a kid (or didnt feel ready), then I could understand then not wanting to use their money to take care of them

I don't think you should look at this from a domination or revenge perspective.

I don't think you should look at this from a domination or revenge perspective. And all of this can be prevented with a vasectomy anyway.

I don't post in topics like this because I don't have an ideal solution and my thoughts are torn on it. However, I do find it weird that people seem to think the only one ruined financially is the man in this situation.

Pregnancy is expensive, so is soley raising a child, and if you have your own place paying your own bills etc that just makes the situation harder. Both parties are in that boat. Children aren't cheap.

Seems bad that the kid should financially suffer due to the father not feeling ready.

I guess I don't see child support as punishment for the father, but instead I see it as support for the child.

Obviously, there can be bad and unfair child support arrangements. But at its most basic, it's meant to support the child

Sometimes abortions can go wrong. They aren't 100% risk free.

Personally what I would like to see is more support from the government and less child support being relied on the people involved. Especially since the parents can be/go broke.

The father does have a say. He could use protection, get a vasectomy, etc. It can potentially be reversed if he changes his mind later. That may not work. It could not take. We can have complications having an abortion. That's true too. Both aspects aren't void of risks.

So both sides do have an out as is. Not to mention.. pregnancy is risky too.

Sure, it seems bad. But just because the father pays child support doesnt mean the child still wont suffer financially. For example, if the father doesnt make enough, not the child and father both suffer financially