re: if women can abort their children, why can't men opt out of parenthood?

quote:

---

And we're discussing their "solution" once a male has ignored his preventative options.

---

See, you keep saying male.

At the point of pregnancy, both parties have ignored preventative options.

quote:

---

you're worse than lnchbox

---

Quite a few people have brought up legitimate concerns with the idea you proposed in the OP. The only counter argument we've been given is essentially "bitches be crazy."

This all boils down to accountability. I'm arguing that both parties should have MORE accountability for their actions. You're arguing that there should be even more ways for them to avoid their responsibility.

quote:

---

Slack, what say should man have in abortion decision?

---

I despise abortions of convenience. I wish there was a way to ensure that the father had a say so in preventing the abortion, but I'm unsure how it can be done. As for "forcing" an abortion, the father should have no say whatsoever.

There is a fundamental difference between a choice to opt of bringing a child into this world (abortion) and the choice not to support an existing child (the topic of this thread).

Setting aside a discussion of abortion's morality, the choice to abort doesn't create dependent members of society which the rest of us have to support. Thus the two options aren't comparable.

Unfortunately we can never have true equality of the sexes, but getting upset about women having an extra choice here is ridiculous.

quote:

---

n other cases where there was oral sex with later use of the sperm, or retrieval of sperm from a condom to inseminate - there is still no sympathy?

---

Sure, I'm sympathetic there. It also highlights my previous point about how lightly most people take sex. If you're fricking around with someone crazy enough to do something like that, surely you've had some signs.

quote:

---

When you create a system where there is a financial payout for being impregnated by a wealthy man then you create a huge and direct incentive for women (who are interested in money) to try to be impregnated by any means necessary. This is very harmful - not just to the men - but to the unwanted children who are only a byproduct of the desire those women to become wealthy. Those children, especially conceived for those reasons, are not likely to have good life outcomes.

---

Agreed, but the number of children born into this situation pale in comparison to the number of dads who would opt out of child support if given the opportunity. Think about what the OP is suggesting. Have as much sex as you'd like. You can now be even LESS responsible during the act because if you end up impregnating the woman, with a quick signature you can opt out of any responsibility. That is fricking asinine.

quote:

---

Unfortunately we can never have true equality of the sexes, but getting upset about women having an extra choice here is ridiculous.

---

Precisely. Think about what implementing this opt out would do. You would go from women having a little more power to men having all the power. No need to wear a condom or pull out. Significantly more unwanted pregnancies, and presumably, abortions. All the male has to do is opt out of his responsibility. He doesn't have to carry a child. He doesn't have to undergo a medical procedure to end a child's life. All he has to do is have sex and sign a paper and he's free to do as he pleases.

fricking lol at the idea of that being an "equitable solution."

Sexism, like racism, can go only one way, by its very definition. Are you even going to class these days?

quote:

---

Sure, I'm sympathetic there. It also highlights my previous point about how lightly most people take sex. If you're fricking around with someone crazy enough to do something like that, surely you've had some signs.

---

You are terribly unsympathetic. People are incredibly prone to make mistakes about the character, sanity, and compatibility of their partners. If they were not, then there would not be so many divorces.

quote:

---

Agreed, but the number of children born into this situation pale in comparison to the number of dads who would opt out of child support if given the opportunity.

---

There are so many things wrong with that statement that I won't be able to do it justice, and certainly not in an efficiently brief manner.

But, for starters when a man is being put into the position of providing child support that indicates he is not getting enough time in home in which the child lives to be a parent. THAT, not money, is the fundamental problem. Children without both parents do much worse on average socially as they grow and as adults.

A huge part of this dysfunctional system has negative roots in the law and ideology. A well intentioned focus on women-infant-children poverty programs has grown the rates of single parenthood and the numbers of children raised in poverty. Ideologues historically have simultaneously argued the father is of marginal family importance while also arguing that men should pay rates of child support that substantially exceed the costs of supporting children.

The absentee parent (usually father) has also become financially profitable for states (because of they receive matching federal funds to the state for child support payments). This matching funds program was started with the alleged intention of reducing child poverty but it overlooks the obvious take home from what we now know about children's welfare. Children with regular good access to both parents (which rules out child support) do better. The federal government should defund this and place a proper priority on shared custody as the absolute default.

Child support is a major driver of these problems. Putting more emphasis on this has only created incentives to reduce dual parent households and therefore harm children. Opting out of child support is the last of the problems. And giving men the same amount of choice as women when it comes to children is not just fair and equal, it results in adult relationships, compromise, and healthier, better adjusted children.

This is not a small problem causing a small number of single parent households with children who have fewer options and worse outcomes. The rates of single parent households may soon be the majority of children born in the United States. When Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote about the family crisis in the American black family decades ago - the rate of single parenthood was lower than the rate of single parents in today's aggregate white families.

quote:

---

But, for starters when a man is being put into the position of providing child support that indicates he is not getting enough time in home in which the child lives to be a parent. THAT, not money, is the fundamental problem. Children without both parents do much worse on average socially as they grow and as adults.

A huge part of this dysfunctional system has negative roots in the law and ideology. A well intentioned focus on women-infant-children poverty programs has grown the rates of single parenthood and the numbers of children raised in poverty. Ideologues historically have simultaneously argued the father is of marginal family importance while also arguing that men should pay rates of child support that substantially exceed the costs of supporting children.

The absentee parent (usually father) has also become financially profitable for states (because of they receive matching federal funds to the state for child support payments). This matching funds program was started with the alleged intention of reducing child poverty but it overlooks the obvious take home from what we now know about children's welfare. Children with regular good access to both parents (which rules out child support) do better. The federal government should defund this and place a proper priority on shared custody as the absolute default.

---

I agree with all of this.

quote:

---

Child support is a major driver of these problems. Putting more emphasis on this has only created incentives to reduce dual parent households and therefore harm children. Opting out of child support is the last of the problems. And giving men the same amount of choice as women when it comes to children is not just fair and equal, it results in adult relationships, compromise, and healthier, better adjusted children.

---

I disagree with all of this. I believe the number of women who have children specifically for the child support from the father is basically inconsequential to the total number of cases where this opt out would apply. More importantly, this opt out would do little of consequence to discourage these women who are in it for the money as they'll still get government benefits. It would also drive more women to chasing an abortion, which is no solution I can support.

As I've said many times - if things are so dire for men across the country, perhaps they should be a bit more careful about what they do with their dick. Changing the laws for these one off cases where a soulless bitch inseminates herself with sperm from a condom used during oral sex is what is short sighted. If you believe society would be better by allowing any man to opt out for any reason, I'd like to hear the reasoning. I've already laid out why I believe the "equitable" argument is ridiculous, but even if this was equitable, how are we better off for it as a society?