this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
663 points (98.7% liked)
InsanePeopleFacebook
2500 readers
572 users here now
Screenshots of people being insane on Facebook. Please censor names/pics of end users in screenshots. Please follow the rules of lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"I don't have anything to do with that kid! Why should I have to pay child support?"
Unfortunately I know people like that in real life, who don't seem to understand that the child support is largely because they want nothing to do with their kid
What if before birth they prove that they wanted the child aborted?
That's not how it works.
Of course not, I'm asking if that's how it should work?
No, it should not. When two consenting adults have sex without protection, the resulting pregnancy shouldn't be the sole problem of the woman.
She is the only one granted the choice to end the responsibility. The father is left with massive financial responsibility for 18 years, that the mother had the choice to prevent. This even occurs in cases of rape.
An abortion is a medical procedure that has a high risk for the woman, and carries with it the trauma of ending a human life.
Yes, she is the only one granted the choice to end it. Because "it" happens within her body.
Should the mother or father be given custody assuming both parents are equally fit and willing? Should the father be able to say either put the child up for adoption or not pay child support? Obviously this lack of choice could happen to the mother too, but she had 9 months of another choice.
If you can't take the heat, better stay out of the kitchen...
Child support isn't meant to punish a parent that's no longer in the child's life. Even if thats the end result, it's meant to support the child.
Because of the bodily autonomy argument there won't be true equality surrounding pregnancy because nobody has (or should have) weight of decision of whether to carry the child except for the person who does so.
But if a child is brought into the world as a result, it needs to be supported. And that's the responsibility of the parents- willing or not.
I think that if male birth control becomes safe and available it will be much closer to equality.
Your logic is fundamentally flawed. In several ways. I see several people arguing with you ineffectively because they assume you are arguing in good faith or have a coherent position... Neither of which I am convinced you possess.
In the US (and most of the world) it is a fundamental right of bodily autonomy that any individual is not subjected to any forced medical situation in the support of another person's life, regardless of that person's age, gender or relationship with the other person. Even if we agreed on when personhood happens (I assume we disagree on it) at no point must one person give up their bodily rights for another. If you provide a special case for pregnancy then we are in a discussion of if your inconsistent belief structure is valid.
You're free to disagree with me, but everything I say on here is in good faith.
Yep, I agree.
I have no strong opinion on when personhood happens, I simply don't know.
A special case for what? You never expressed your disagreement with me.
Your inability to follow the argument is probably the problem.
Okay, then tell me what I missed
Why should I repeat myself?
Because clearly I failed to understand what you said, so rephrasing could enable that.
If they were going to want the baby aborted, they shouldn't have had sex without a condom. You don't get to cum inside someone and then tell them what to do with it. Your jizz, your problem.
My parents were using a condom lmao. They're not perfect.
So, do you oppose abortion in general?
Obviously not. They're saying that the person that gets pregnant gets to decide whether or not they want to abort. It's not the decision of the sperm donor.
So, a mother has a choice to opt out of paying for a child if they can't afford it. But a father is given the same choice.
Yes. Everyone should have autonomy over their own bodies, especially when it's a matter of something as major as pregnancy. Pregnancy is a medical condition, and the only person that should (legally) have any input in medical decision making for pregnancy is the person that's pregnant.
The mother clearly has a bigger stake in pregnancy than a father and I can't believe this needs to be explained. Yes, women get to choose if they want to be mothers for a variety of complicated and nuanced reasons. For men they can simply choose to not raw dog a woman. Obviously it's different if they were raped or their semen was stolen but those are much more rare cases.
And, generally, the women also have the exact same choice. Yet they are given much more of a choice post pregnancy test.
The father made that choice when he decided it was a good idea to fuck without protection. You don't get to undo mistakes you made by telling someone else to undergo a medical procedure they don't want. It doesn't matter if you realized your mistake the next day and started telling them to use plan B. You can not want a baby all you want, but the only thing that matters is, did you willingly play your part in making it?
I agree with your basic argument, but this point in particular is dumb for 2 reasons
Unless the father is a rapist, they both decided to have unprotected sex
Condoms fail sometimes. Wearing one significantly reduces the likelihood of pregnancy but it's hardly a pancea. Any competent sex-ed teacher should have explained that
That being said, there's no ethical way to give a man control after conception and allowing them to bail on child support eould be detrimental to society. Single mothers have it hard enough already.
What a person does with their own body is entirely up to them. If you play your part in making that baby, and the person you came inside of plays their part too, you both have to pay for it. The sperm donor has one opportunity to opt out of being a parent, and that one opportunity is when they're having sex.
Yes, but when one person has the choice to not have a child, the other person can express their desire to not raise the child.
Why?
Why?
You can express your desire to not raise a child all you want, it doesn't change the fact that you made a choice that led to that child being born.
You both have to pay for it because you both made a decision to make it. Both parents have an obligation to provide support, and if one parent wants nothing to do with the kid, that support must be financial. "Why?" Because that kid costs money to raise, and the alternative is the state paying for your decision not to wrap it up. Like hell do I want my taxes paying for your one night stand.
Because you can't make medical decisions for someone else, your one and only opportunity to opt out of being a father is while you're having sex. The only person who gets to decide whether or not to have an abortion is the pregnant party. If they opt not to, but you really, really want them to, then that sucks for you, but refer back to point 2.