Current Events > Thoughts on "Financial Abortions"

(+) Yeah! (+)

bigblu89 posted...

where there isn't one attached to a woman giving birth to a child with the intentions of giving it up for adoption due to the lack of financial or emotional support that the child deserves.

I would doubt this as true, and if you're making this claim, you should at least back it up.

bigblu89 posted...

I don't know if it's what we have now. There is a stigma attached to any man that isn't present in their child's life, where there isn't one attached to a woman giving birth to a child with the intentions of giving it up for adoption due to the lack of financial or emotional support that the child deserves.

I'm not talking about men having a "get out of fatherhood free" card. I'm talking specifically where the father argues that he is not financially or emotionally prepared to have a child, and the woman insist on having it. The stigma attached to a father abandoning that child, even after all alternate avenues have been explored, shouldn't be as great as it currently is in our society.

In theory, the man is doing the right thing in arguing that him and the potential mother are not suitable, be it financially or emotionally, for parenthood.

Yeah, it's not a pleasant situation to be in. Ultimately the way you set it up just makes me react in a sex negative way. People are often punished for having kids they cannot raise. I think absolving the father just makes the situation categorically worse in every case though. Maybe the father can't work and that kind of thing is the exception to the rule. Idk.

Nemu posted...

That's the burden on them for having sex without preparing for the consequences. One man could conceive five children in one night and have no physical burden whatsoever, while five women would have to deal with it for nearly a year afterwards. Both parties are equally at fault for negligence, but the mother bears more of a physical burden and thus has more control over the situation. The father then has to bear part of the financial burden afterwards.

So, in other words, for the man it's "You knew what you were getting into. You made your bed." but for the woman it's "You knew what you were getting into. You made y our bed. But here's a half dozen options to get out of it."?

CyricZ posted...

I would doubt this as true, and if you're making this claim, you should at least back it up.

Really? Since Roe was overturned, how hard has the "Well, there's always adoption" crowd come to the forefront?

MedeaLysistrata posted...

Yeah, it's not a pleasant situation to be in. Ultimately the way you set it up just makes me react in a sex negative way. People are often punished for having kids they cannot raise. I think absolving the father just makes the situation categorically worse in every case though. Maybe the father can't work and that kind of thing is the exception to the rule. Idk.

The stigma attached to being a parent to a child that you cannot financially or emotionally provide for is one that both men and women have to battle.

bigblu89 posted...

So, in other words, for the man it's "You knew what you were getting into. You made your bed." but for the woman it's "You knew what you were getting into. You made y our bed. But here's a half dozen options to get out of it."?

bigblu89 posted...

So, in other words, for the man it's "You knew what you were getting into. You made your bed." but for the woman it's "You knew what you were getting into. You made y our bed. But here's a half dozen options to get out of it."?

The father doesn't have to raise the child he only had to support it. The mother has to carry the fetus and support it or give it up for adoption. Or abort the fetus. 2/3 situation absolve the man too. It's almost like abortion and adoption have more positives for more people while financial abortion seems to only benefit one person.

bigblu89 posted...

The stigma attached to being a parent to a child that you cannot financially or emotionally provide for is one that both men and women have to battle.

Yes but the solution to that is not to just do away with child support...

I also think the state should invest more in children than they currently do, but that has been brought up already.

bigblu89 posted...

So, in other words, for the man it's "You knew what you were getting into. You made your bed." but for the woman it's "You knew what you were getting into. You made y our bed. But here's a half dozen options to get out of it."?

Yes, one party has an extraordinarily higher burden, so they have more freedom of control. In the case of the man not wanting the woman to abort, that will only be a viable discussion once artificial womb technology is viable. In the case of the man wanting the woman to abort, that will never be a viable discussion, but the option of abandoning responsibility could be one if the country can figure out how to care for unwanted and abused children better.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This as well, I didn't really mention it but there is definitely stigma occupying pretty much every aspect of adoption.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

This as well, I didn't really mention it but there is definitely stigma occupying pretty much every aspect of adoption.

Being adopted, maybe.

Bringing a fetus to term, and giving it up for adoption because you know you cannot support it emotionally or financially. I don't know how much of stigma is attached to that.

You'd have to be a real jerk to get on a woman for bringing a child into the world and giving them to a family that wants a child.

bigblu89 posted...

Being adopted, maybe.

Bringing a fetus to term, and giving it up for adoption because you know you cannot support it emotionally or financially. I don't know how much of stigma is attached to that.

You'd have to be a real jerk to get on a woman for bringing a child into the world and giving them to a family that wants a child.

I mean there shouldn't be stigma around people having kids in general. Even if they are not the best parents... But that is besides the point

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

That's kinda what I've been getting at this entire time with the topic I created.

I personally do not know the answer, and felt it was one worth discussing.

I honestly don't know if there's a solution. Or if there even needs to be a solution, as I personally couldn't fathom knowing I have a child in the world and I wasn't a part of their life.

So I'm not necessarily advocating for my proposed "financial abortion", I was just wondering if it should be a viable option for a potential father.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

I mean there shouldn't be stigma around people having kids in general. Even if they are not the best parents... But that is besides the point

Agreed. Different discussion for a different day though.

Absolutely opposed.

Support is the right of the child.

Men can already choose to terminate their parental rights. Men and women can already make legal agreements to not have one party involved in the child's life. Men have control over where they deposit their sperm and, if they're that worried, they can just not have one-night stands or wrap it up. Them's the breaks. The vanishingly few women who would trawl nightclubs looking to sap your fluids for financial gain are not worthy of a societal overhaul or new law permitting "financial abortion," a term which flattens and conflates the possible burdens artificially.

Tough shit that women (theoretically if not legally) have control over their own bodies. They also bear the full physical burden of carrying to term or not, so obviously it's not and shouldn't be treated "the same" or have some kind of concocted "equality" that would only benefit men.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yes. Sex is basically a contract that one may conceive a child. So, as long as it is consensual, both parties are agreeing to that possible outcome and both have to bear responsibility for it under our current system. In that contract, the woman gets more control over the outcome because she is taking most of the risk. In a different system years or decades down the line where we can assure the child will be given all the financial support needed, then the man should just be able to fuck off if he wants.

Gladius_ posted...

You don't understand how statistics work do you? Risk factors always apply even if they don't effect everyone. That's such an inane example and is straight from the talking points of antivaxxers.

"But not everyone has serious complications!" Is that really your argument? The fact that they could and the consequences can be deadly absolutely do matter.

But then you go on to say "I don't care about the risk factors." No. You clearly don't. Having a discussion with you is pointless when you don't care about the wellbeing of the woman in question and you handwave our risks.

"Adoption.."

Isn't an out because a man can claim the child and hold the woman accountable for child support.

"Nothing changes there's no point in fighting the system."

How cute. Throwing in the towel already when we had to fight from having no rights to getting close to equality. Don't worry. I'll continue to fight for my rights and then fight for yours whether it's appreciated or not anyway. You're welcome.

I understand how statistics work. Everything has the potential for risk. Going out to eat has the potential risk of food poisoning, and for some, going to work has the potential risk of injury or death. Every just leaving your house has the potential risk of literally anything happening. But just because they all have the potential of risk doesnt necessarily make something risky. Just because I have the potential risk of food poisoning at a restaurant doesnt mean Ill call eating at a restaurant risky every time, for example

Sure, some pregnancies put the mothers life at risk. There are many that dont. And some that dont out the mothers life at risk, but just the unborn one Not every pregnancy is a risky one Its that simple. Yet youre trying to make it seem like they all are So its makes no sense that youre trying to trust the They could have complications excuse Unless youre also going to say that if they dont have complications, then the father doesnt have to pay

I dont care about risk factors with regards to whether or not the father has a possible out Thats true And it seems you only care about the women is the discussion. So, whatever

Thats if the man knows. And if he can even get custody. There are ways where he could fail to get custody, apparently. I been looking up stuff about it And if you paid attention to anything I said, you would know I wanted to women the same out as men. And it could be used here. For example, the out would give women the chance to not be accountable for the baby they wanted to give up for adoption that was adopted by the man. Just like the men, it has restrictions and limits. And adoption is still an out. Its an out that they still have the chance of using that men dont get

Yeah. Why fight anymore? Everything we fought for is already being undone right in front of us. The end result is fighting is pointless if the people in charge dont agree Thats evident by whats been going on these past years People have been protesting, and were still losing rights. Why waste my breath, time, and energy anymore If you want to waste your time, go ahead. Ill wait until we actually have a way to fight back

I have nothing to thank you for

CyricZ posted...

For those of you who aren't processing, gunplagirl is rejecting the idea that a man should be allowed to get one financial abortion. She considers it absurd and abusive and not worth taking seriously.

It's a lesson that not every opinion deserves to be taken with equal measure of seriousness. Your opinion isn't worthy just because you've had one.

Also I was taught this ages ago, but don't use ellipsis in your message board posts. It looks like you're not clear on your own words or that you're uncertain or trailing off.

I think my opinion is worth as much as anyone elses. If people dont agree with my opinion, thats fine. Because I may not agree with theirs, as well But just because you dont agree doesnt mean my opinion is worthless

And if people cant understand Im clear on my words because of the ellipses, thats on them I always use ellipses Its just my thing

dolomedes posted...

lol

I think its fine Thats all

Gladius_ posted...

Do know that adoption does require the consent of both parents or as I noted in a previous post the father in question could claim custody of the child and demand financial support of the mother. So it's not this silver bullet out people have made it out to be. The father does have a say regarding adoption.

Except thats not true. In most cases, you should get the consent of both. But you dont need to in certain cases. Like not being able to find him, or not knowing who he is. Or if you just dont tell him. There are also other things like abuse, him not being a fit parent, certain things on his record like convicted violent felon and such. And if my plan was proposed, the women would also be able to get out of paying child support like I said for the man

hockeybub89 posted...

This is "pro-choice" for men

Which seems fair to me. Women have a choice whether or not to be a mother. Men should have a choice whether or not to be a father.

I don't buy this flimsy idea that a man is somehow forcing a woman to have an abortion by choosing not to financially support the child. The choice is still the woman's to make.

Nemu posted...

Yes. Sex is basically a contract that one may conceive a child. So, as long as it is consensual, both parties are agreeing to that possible outcome and both have to bear responsibility for it under our current system. In that contract, the woman gets more control over the outcome because she is taking most of the risk. In a different system years or decades down the line where we can assure the child will be given all the financial support needed, then the man should just be able to fuck off if he wants.

The problem is that that probably wont matter. For example, right now, even if the woman makes plenty of money (enough for her and the child to live very comfortably), the man still has to pay. In that case, she already was assured that the child would have the financial support they need because she had money. Bu the father would still have to pay. So, even if the government gave money to help (which I dont see happening), they would most likely still make the father pay

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Which seems fair to me. Women have a choice whether or not to be a mother. Men should have a choice whether or not to be a father.

Which they can once they can carry a pregnancy. Is there an echo in here?

I don't buy this flimsy idea that a man is somehow forcing a woman to have an abortion by choosing not to financially support the child. The choice is still the woman's to make.

No I imagine you wouldn't. The pregnancy exists in the mother because of the father. It's an abandonment of responsibility to allow men to scamper off and let the mother deal with all of it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I dare you to get a woman to agree with you on that.

CyricZ posted...

Which they can once they can carry a pregnancy

Why such extreme inequity? A woman and a man should have equal rights to choose whether or not to be a parent.

LinkPizza posted...

The problem is that that probably wont matter. For example, right now, even if the woman makes plenty of money (enough for her and the child to live very comfortably), the man still has to pay. In that case, she already was assured that the child would have the financial support they need because she had money. Bu the father would still have to pay. So, even if the government gave money to help (which I dont see happening), they would most likely still make the father pay

Under the current system, both parents have a duty to provide for the child financially no matter financial status or who has primary custody. Those with great disparity in income may choose to waive that right, but it's always there. Under a hypothetical where the government provides children with financial support, then there would be no inherent need to burden those who want no part in it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Even if right now artificial wombs became a thing, it would still require both parents to consent to terminate the child and both parents to consent for one of them to give up their rights and obligations, so taking the burden away wouldn't really anything in regards to parental rights.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Why such extreme inequity? A woman and a man should have equal rights to choose whether or not to be a parent.

Because he thinks this somehow makes his view valid. By adding a qualifier that is impossible to obtain, he somehow thinks it makes his opinion the "right" opinion.

CyricZ posted...

Which they can once they can carry a pregnancy. Is there an echo in here?

Are you saying that someone that identifies as a man cannot get pregnant and carry a child?

That's very closed minded of you.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

And both are human beings who should have equal rights.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

And here you are, saying that we shouldn't. Clearly we don't have equal rights, because if we did, men would be able to legally divest themselves from responsibility during at least the first trimester.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I don't see how this is relevant. I don't make fun of specific people for being vegans, but maybe I'll make a generalized remark about vegans every now and then. Shit, it's probably been years since the last time I joked about veganism.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

This is a non sequitur. It has absolutely no bearing on whether or not men and women should have equal rights.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

Why such extreme inequity? A woman and a man should have equal rights to choose whether or not to be a parent.

Take it up with God for making it so only half the species could carry a pregnancy.

CyricZ posted...

Take it up with God for making it so only half the species could carry a pregnancy.

It's not a valid argument against equal rights.

bigblu89 posted...

Are you saying that someone that identifies as a man cannot get pregnant and carry a child?

That's very closed minded of you.

No I absolutely did not say that. That is something you made up for a "woke gotcha" because I didn't specifically clarify the existence of trans men and nonbinary people who can become parents, because I thought you and others were mature enough to not try to use that as a way to win an argument.

Apparently I was wrong in my assumption on your maturity.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Given the existence of trans men, I cannot confidently state the number of men who have died as a result of pregnancy complications since Roe v Wade.

If the answer were zero, however, it would change nothing.

Gobstoppers12 posted...

It's not a valid argument against equal rights.

You make this argument ignoring the biological inequality that already exists. The fact that only half the species can carry a pregnancy is an inequality.

Establishing that that half of the species is in control of that is meant to address that inequality. It is imperfect, but I see no answer towards further balancing that that doesn't swing heavily in favor of the other half of the species.

A half of the species that I might point out has historically already taken unfair advantage of the fact that they don't carry the pregnancy on a massive number of occasions.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It's the honest answer to your question.

CyricZ posted...

It is imperfect, but I see no answer towards further balancing that that doesn't swing heavily in favor of the other half of the species.

Men should not be forced to support a child they never wanted. There should definitely be a cut off of some kind. They can't just divest when the kid is six months old and the pressure is on.

It's quite fair to say that a man should be able to withdraw his rights to fatherhood up to at least the end of the first trimester. Maybe the second.