My opinion on abortion for men is that abortion should be safe, legal, and free for pregnant men as well as for pregnant women and non-binary people
Everyone's missing the most important difference here. The woman has to literally bear the child; carry it in her ueterus for the better part of a year and then force it through her cervix. Forcing her to do this is an extreme act of violence permently changes her body and is potentially fatal. Ignoring this difference is completely disingenuous.
It’s an important difference, but was never my sole or even biggest reason for supporting abortion. If that was my only reason for supporting abortion I’d be against parents being able to give up their children for adoption and that would be insane.
It still colors the pro abortion arguments anyways. For men its a mere question of responsibility. For women it is both a question of responsibility and extreme bodily harm. If babies were born effortlessly then we might say let the baby be born and give it to the father if he's the only one that wants it. But thats not the case.
Sure, and that’s why no one here is saying the father should have any choice in whether a medical abortion happens. Everyone should have bodily autonomy, one of my reasons for supporting abortion.
However, my other, arguably larger reason for supporting abortion is that I don’t think anyone should be forced to be a parent.
If we had some sort of socialized child sponsorship, sure. But in absense of that, forcing a person to take responsibility for a child is better than letting the child be unsupported.
Another big difference here is that the child is real and does exist. It isn't an embyro or hypothetical. It is alive and responsibility must be accepted for it.
Another big difference here is that the child is real and does exist.
No? No it isn’t. That’s the whole point of this post. This decision would be made when there is an embryo, when the mother still has the opportunity to get an abortion.
But also, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a solution to child poverty is to force a random dude that wanted nothing to do with it to pay for it.
The child is going to exist or else it a non issue. We're talking about paying child support. You dont pay child support for an embryo.
You want socialized child support. Thats good. I want that to. Father abortion makes sense in that context.
The child doesn’t have to exist. This choice is made when there is still a chance to get an abortion. If not having child support from the father makes you not want a child, abort the pregnancy.
I think part of my thought on this is that for me and my current and past partners, abortion has always been the default choice. We don’t, and never have wanted kids. Before we had sex the first time, we agreed if she got pregnant she’d get an abortion.
If you don’t want to be a parent, you shouldn’t have to be. Full stop.
Let's restate your position here. You want the father to be able to financially coerce the mother into abortion. How is that good?
Look everything you're saying makes perfect sense in the context of socialized child support. But if the mother decides to bear the child then it must be fully sponsored. The child's positive right to support trumps your negative right abandon fathership. Socialized child support would resolve the conflict but I'm talking in its absence.
But if the mother decides to bear the child then it must be fully sponsored. The child’s positive right to support trumps your negative right abandon fathership.
But this is a decision being made before the existence of a child and therefor before it has any rights to speak of. We’re not talking about the rights of a child vs the rights of a father, we’re talking about the rights of a potential father vs the rights of a potential mother. And I don’t think the right of the mother to not have an abortion trumps the right of the father to not have a child.
If the options are financially coercing someone into getting a very common medical procedure or legally coercing someone into what is ultimately a form of involuntary servitude (even if it’s the lightest form of it), I pick the first one. Like I said though, I view abortion as the default option. Unless you got pregnant deliberately with a full plan for raising the child, you should get an abortion.
If the options are financially coercing someone into getting a very common medical procedure or legally coercing someone into what is ultimately a form of involuntary servitude
common medical procedure is doing a lot work here... That medical procedure is on the woman's body. Your are describing a man controlling a woman's body by threatening to not pay taxes. A true :libertarian-approaching: dream.
But also, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a solution to child poverty is to force a random dude that wanted nothing to do with it to pay for it.
The way it was explained to me is that the power to force men to pay child support is power for women, end of story. It advantages women and harms men and that's all anyone needs to know.
Women also have to pay child support in situations where a woman gives up custody to a man. Child support isn’t this thing that only men ever have to pay, that’s not how it works- oh wait you made your account two hours ago, lol. I’m done putting effort into this comment
It is a false equivalence to state that if women can decide to not be a mother then a man can decide to not be a father because the father is not the one bearing the child.
See my response here. My new point #2: In this case the child is real and does exist.
Your describing an imagined right of the father to financially threaten the mother into an abortion. But its all a bluff. If she bears the child then the child is real and has rights of its own. It has positive rights to full support and that negates whatever imagined negative rights for the father to not be the father. (Again socialized child support resolves all these issues.)
ah you're in Denmark so you actually have socialized child support. forgot that.
yeah if you dont have that socialized child support you're basically attempting to control a woman's body by threating to not pay taxes. but with socialized child support its already paid so.
I really don't see how that matters. What we are talking about is what happens after the pregnant one decides they want to be a parent. They has already consented to that harm, whether or not the sperm-contributor is involved.
That point was to highlight the false equivalence of saying if a woman doesnt have to be a parent then the man doesnt have to be a father if they dont want to. Being a father doesnt mean you have the physically give birth.
No one can actually make you be a father/parent if you dont want to but they can make you financially responsible for the child if its born. You cannot abdicate that responsibility if the child is born because it has the right to be sponsored. Trying to push the sole responsibility onto the mother is attempting to coerce her into an abortion. That is literally attempting to control her body by not paying money.
It's not a false equivalence, the pregnant party can give up the child for adoption after birth, leaving behind financial and material support. If this parent isn't forced to parent, nethier should the other.
Trying to push the sole responsibility onto the mother is attempting to coerce her into an abortion. That is literally attempting to control her body by not paying money.
No, no it isn't. Just because it makes abortion a more tempting option potentially, does that mean someone is manipulating her into that choice. Let's look at the reverse: if a pregnant person is planning on aborting because they don't want to give birth or have a child, and the other parent offers to adopt and pay for the whole thing, she just has to incubate, is that coercion? I would argue it's not, because it is still entirely the pregnant person's choice what happens. So if someone says "I'm not raising this kid, do what you like" it is the pregnant party's choice what happens still, this isn't coercion.
the pregnant party can give up the child for adoption after birth, leaving behind financial and material support.
:wtf-am-i-reading: Do you not know the nonpregnant party can claim the child and force the other to pay child support before they put it up for adoption? Child support does work both ways. The false equivalence is saying someone's right to not be a parent is the same as someone's right to not give birth. I dont really know what point you were trying to make or refute here.
Your counter is also not the same because you're offering to help vs offering to not help. In that example they would be expanding the pregnant persons options instead of restricting them.
Like think about what you said there. In one scenario you're saying "I'll pay for everything, but its still up to you to actually give birth" vs "if you have the child you'll be poor and destitute and the child will have a miserable upbringing". Do these two seem to be equally moral actions?
if you have the child you’ll be poor and destitute and the child will have a miserable upbringing
What the fuck are you talking about? having two parents does not guarantee material needs being met or the happiness of the child, and plenty of single mothers have been capable of meeting their children's material and emotional needs before becoming pregnant and throughout their upbringing. You are just furthering the patriarchy. You are saying a mans job is to support a woman and child, and a woman cannot make it on her own. Yes, it is hard. But a woman and a child do not need a man. And even if they did, if the inseminator did not trick, coerce, or violate the impregnated party, they are not responsible for the child unless they agreed in advance or afterwards! Your autonomy does not hinge on what others need. If you woke up one morning and were suddenly pregnant, and it was a miracle, there was no other person involved, you would have the choice to carry or not, no one else weighs in. No one else bears responsibility. So if you and someone else have sex, and you're not planning on getting pregnant but do, why are they responsible? If they used protection and it failed especially, but in any case carrying to term is your choice, not theirs, and it is their choice whether or not they parent the child as well.
Do not accuse me of supporting patriarchy when I'm not the one advocating for letting men use their money to "tempt" women into making decision
having two parents does not guarantee material needs being met or the happiness of the child, and plenty of single mothers have been capable of meeting their children’s material and emotional needs before becoming pregnant and throughout their upbringing.
Wow its almost like having child is a tremendous financial burden and the more money you have the easier it is. If the pregnant party doesnt have enough money on their own and the other party says "I won't pay" then that party is strongly coercing them into an abortion. Unfuck your mind for thinking this somehow means the "its the man's job to provide for the family". Its both parents jobs to provide for the family and in the vast majority of the time bother are needed. And - as you said - both are too often not enough.
The edge case of the pregnant party being wealthy enough to support the child on their own is what we'd all like though right? Perhaps there's some socialized child support to ensure there will be enough resources for the child. That'd resolve most of this. But regardless two points must stand:
- if the child is to be born they must be financially supported
- the partner should not be able to coerce the pregnant person's decision to bear or not bear the child.
"Male Abortion" hinges on the partner saying 'no' to the pregnancy in some meaningful way that makes the pregnant party abort. Its absurd that I have to explain to you that is patriarchy.
“Male Abortion” hinges on the partner saying ‘no’ to the pregnancy in some meaningful way that makes the pregnant party abort. Its absurd that I have to explain to you that is patriarchy.
No it doesn't. The post explicitly explained it means the male partner "aborting" in the sense that they legally have no relationship with the child. It does not require an actual abortion to occur. This is why I repeatedly stated there was no coercion, because it is not a decision about the pregnant partner at all.
They already can abdicate explicit parental rights to the child. Thats already a legal right that exists and isn't being litigated.
The question is if they can avoid paying child support. If the child is being born and we dont have some sort of socialized child support system in place, then abdicating child support cannot be allowed because that can coerce the pregnant party into an abortion.
Why would someone do that? If you aren't paying and have no connection to the child, there is to reason to do this.
Do what? I'm not sure what exactly this and that point to in "do that" and "do this".
If you aren’t paying
The issue is the other parent can force you to pay (this may not be law if your not from the US). The OP was asking if one can get out of paying by saying "I choose to abort" before the child is born.
The antecedent is "pressure an abortion." The ability to not pay, which is what the male abortion is suggesting, is what I'm talking about. If you gave everyone that right, that when the pregnant party decides to carry, has already made that choice, the impregnating party can just go "I don't claim this kid to my name, and I will not pay for it," there would be no reason to pressure an actual, physical abortion.
The pregnant party would always want to know if their partner is committed or not before making a decision because most often their ability to care for the child will require the second income.
Your scenario would never happen unless the pregnant party had enough money that they dont care if the other is committed or not. But in that case its a mutual agreement which is already legal.
Consider if your scenario did somehow happen and the pregnant party didn't have the resources on their own. Either they're going to struggle to barely provide for the child or they are going yo reconsider not having an abortion.
Either they’re going to struggle to barely provide for the child or they are going yo reconsider not having an abortion.
Meaning, I cannot stress this part enough, that they are making the choice. If you asked for money to medically transition and I don't give, I am not coercing you against transitioning, I'm just not taking part in it. There's no reason that, if someone pregnant can make the choice alone whether to raise a child or not, that the person who impregnated them should have the exact same right. Sometimes respecting everyone's autonomy leads to shitty situations, that doesn't make it okay to violate someone's autonomy.
You have no responsibility to assist me transisitioning. You do have responsibility to assist me raising a child if you got me pregnant and I choose to keep it. You cannot coerce me into getting an abortion an abortion more than you can coerce me into bearing a child.
Yes it is shitty but bodily autonomy trumps financial autonomy. Anything else is :libertarian-approaching:
Learn to fucking read. I'm tired of repeating this, this is not coercion because a physical abortion is not necessary for this. does it become more likely? Maybe. But it also might become more likely if you disclose you have a genetic disorder. That's still no coercion. So no, you don't have a requirement to help raise the child. And it doesn't violate bodily autonomy.
If they cannot support the child on their own and your partner won't support then abortion is the only viable option. Not paying forces that option. Not paying is the partners choice. Genetic disorders are nobodies choice.
I too am tired of repeating this. Good day.
I want to say that this is the crux of the issue. I'm literally annoyed that you said it before I did.
This post doesn't need 200+ comments from wanna-be deadbeat dads. The AFAB has to bear the child in their body while the AMAB can always fuck off with their body intact. For this reason, you can't equivocate the two people and any policy related to childbirth and child care must always be biased towards the AFAB, even in a communist society. And since we don't live in a classless society but a class society where cishet patriarchy has been the standard for millennia, well then.
What does afab/amab stand for exactly? Because I'm just reading all (parents) are bastards.
Adult females ante birth?
AFAB = assigned female at birth
AMAB = assigned male at birth
I used AFAB instead of women because transmen can get pregnant too. Transwomen can impregnate people too, but they have to artificially inseminate sperm they had frozen before undergoing HRT.
honestly, good discussion, OP
Obviously the situation isn't symmetric and you agree, but I think there's an important clarification that a lot of people need to be making between the ideal policy and the practical policy.
Ideally speaking, I 100% agree with your policy that nobody should be forced to raise a child they don't want. This requires a state that (as a state should) ensures the wellbeing of every one of its citizens, to the point that even if neither parent wanted to have the kid, they would still be guaranteed a complete quality of upbringing and life.
Practically, we obviously don't have that. At that point, you're having to play a game of priorities: there's a child here and the state isn't gonna care for it and the mother isn't capable of providing full care either. Your two options are to disregard the child's right to a quality upbringing so the father can have their right to not raise a child they don't want, or disregard the father's right to not raise a child who they don't want in exchange for upholding the right of the child to have a quality upbringing.
Any argument about "deadbeat dads" is the capitalist propaganda working, this is a behavior of poor education and poverty and lack of access to birth control. Blaming the individual is excusing the society. However I'm still, even without invoking the "deadbeat dad" argument, going to say that the child's right to a quality upbringing takes priority over the father's right to not raise a child they don't want. Three reasons:
- The right to a quality upbringing is more fundamental than the right to not raise a child you don't want.
- The overall impact on society of the father being forced to raise the child is less bad than the impact of the child being raised without a complete and healthy upbringing.
- Even under socialism, people are gonna have to do things they don't want to - on an individual level - for the collective good. In the absence of a state safety net for children, making people who don't want to do childcare, do childcare, is mandating the completion of an undesirable job for the good of society. Is the labor distribution equitable? No. Are there people who would likely be happy to raise children instead of their current job? Yes. But mandating that someone does it, and that someone being the biological father, is the best capitalism can do.
This is the most Marxian response in this thread. using actual theory to show how this argument doesn’t hold up. Good job comrade.
I am the one true leftist :elmofire:
really tho thanks comrade, I took my time and I'm glad to hear whatever brainworms I may have don't have any jurisdiction on this topic
Going second thing first, I definitely don't want to imply that a "father" is necessary to raise a good kid, just that two caregivers and income earners is almost always going to be better than one unless one of those caregivers is an abuser, but that's an entirely different discussion (although I don't want to downplay the fact that forced parenthood might be a facilitator of abuse).
As for the first thing, that is a huge concession to ask of capitalism, even from the cushiest of cushy social democracies. Even the very forefront of social democracy only grants a year or two of paid family leave, and in many of those cases it's being demonstrated that the belt is starting to tighten and those benefits are on the chopping block. You really need like 10+ years of a full living wage for two and healthcare/other benefits, and then another 8 or so years of a full living wage plus guaranteed half-time or less work for the only parent, and that's if the kid is happy to spend a lot of their time with things like sports or after-school activities where they are cared for. I don't see any capitalist society making it that far in concessions to the proletariat before the backswing of capital reclaiming their wealth and power takes over.
again, thanks for bringing the thread here, I think you probably knew you were going to catch some heat and you did it anyways. I had to think for a while before I actually decided which way I stand and why which means it's a beneficial discussion to have as a community imo, I see a lot of people conceding certain points and changing their minds, you included, in a lot of threads here and that's good :stalin-approval:
ITT: Hexbear reinvents anti-abortion arguments but it’s okay because it’s men being forced into involuntary servitude this time.
I have a very consistent rule that doesn’t require the amount of mental gymnastics everyone in this thread is doing: No one, regardless of gender or genitalia, should be forced to have or support a child they did not want.
It’s giving “SA is funny when it happens to men” and I’m not a fan
It’s because a lot of leftist think that because they agree with the right statements aka “Women should have bodily autonomy” that they do not need to examine their position further.
No one, regardless of gender or genitalia, should be forced to have or support a child they did not want.
boy do I have an ideology for you :porky-happy:
“Communism is when forced parenthood” :marx-joker:
American men unironically believe this, but not in a good way
Some posters here are like a comment away from starting a rant about "male role models" or something, it's a little silly
I just woke up. I'm not reading any of this. You will not get my "take". I will not read your "take".
Guarantee free care for all children, and there's no paternity problem to be had. Take a step toward reducing the amount of already-deficient care that kids get at present, and I will [redacted, very elaborate threat]
That's not a fucking abortion.
Because at the end of the day there is still a human that is being brought into the world in a capitalist hellscape where growing up on a single income can completely fuck their life.
What we're trying to say is that under FALGSC, men could abandon their families freely. Except we're saying it with the understanding that FALGSC is the wild-eyed pie-in-the-sky dream version of communism.
Edit: On reflection, my phrasing here in 'abandon their families' is overtly flippant and revealing of my internal biases. However, the point I was trying to get across is the same as the point illustrated in this comment. Under the absolute perfect Marxist economic system, expressed here (with an irreverence that might be the root of a lot of problems in my life, come to think of it) as FALGSC, it would be far more acceptable to leave parenting to one individual because it wouldn't be anywhere near as damaging to that kid's upbringing.
Where does this idea of “abandoning your family” come from?
I keep seeing people say that in this thread and it reeks of Republican “family values” bullshit. We’re not talking about a dad going to get cigarettes and never returning to his 3 kids and a wife, we’re talking about a guy who’s told by a hookup or short term relationship that she’s pregnant and wants to keep the baby. There’s no family there!
Yeah, it's just patriarchy being redressed as 'protecting women' somehow, as if patriarchy didn't have laws like this about men having to care/provide for some women like this already. Also seems to come off as weirdly anti-abortion/pro-life because they can't differentiate between potential children (before birth, subject to possible abortion) and real children (after birth, not subject to abortion, hopefully).
They literally can, that’s what this whole discussion is about.
How? You have literally never given an example of somebody forced to be a father.
That and the law.
Which law? Where was this law when my father walked out?
Paying child support is not the same as being a father, end of.
not paying child support is punishable
You vastly overestimate how cut-and-dry the legal system is on this matter. My mom actually sued my 'donor' over failure to pay child support and the court sided with him because he lived in poverty.
You pay child support because the state recognizes you as the father of the child. This happens wether or not you consent to be a parent. Depending on the place you’re in, there will also be additional responsibilites.
I asked you for an example of somebody who was forced into fatherhood IRL. You responded with a hypothetical person who exists only within the legal framework of child support. This is not engaging in good faith.
So if you've knocked someone up and are having anxieties about it, maybe come at it from that angle instead of this delusional "But men!" angle.
What are you even talking about? Where have I made this personal or about my worries for myself?
Normal people don't just enter debate bro mode like this. This is a defence mechanism, and I know because I used to do it too. If you're not willing to admit you're not in a good place, I'm not willing to continue this discussion.
M8, when I said paying child support =/= being a father, you said it was the same under the law. You completely ignored the fact that fathering takes more than just money so you could move the goalposts from me. You never defined your terms and yet you seriously expect me to believe you're engaging in good faith?
Also in the time it took me to phrase this comment, you changed the one I was replying to 3 times. You're literally making it up as you go.
Opinions discarded. Enjoy your child support anxieties.
Honestly from an outsider in this discussion it looks like your arguments are purely reactionary and crumble at even the slightest questioning. The result is you get mad and call the other guy a debatebro.
Alright, I'll fess up to being biased and flippant in my phrasing with "Abandon their families". Otherwise, what I was saying in my first comment is the same as this one, but in fewer words
You're putting the cart before the horse if you're talking about "what if socialized child support" in the context of arguing about financial abortions.
No woman should have to carry to term if they do not desire it. No man or woman should be forced to support an undesired child for 18 years. There are more orphans than parents that want a biological child. It requires a total rethinking of the family that I am not really equipped to do. But I want it to be a conversation. Do I want to see women forced to give birth? No. Do I want to see abandoned children? No. Society has to have a long and difficult talk about this. And that sincere conversation will not happen under the tyranny of capital. It fucks with our heads. It makes us think about money more than life. That's why it is evil.
Thank you as well, you asked a question that needed honest discussion
I'd be for the concept if the mother was guaranteed other equivalent support, funding etc, probably a bunch more given the mother already has more onus on them. But we all know what would happen, right?
Yeah if childcare was ensured by the community and state then I think this would be a no-brainer. Although the dad in this case would still be paying child support (taxes).
My main concern is that it's quite likely that a lot of dudes would just lie to a partner for condomless sex and then just "male abort" if a pregnancy comes up. Men already lie all the time to try to get their condoms off and they already abandon children at a much higher rate than women (the idea of men not winning custody when they try is mostly a myth, it's because men just don't try) so it seems quite likely that lie and male abort would become a serious issue.
Lying about wearing a condom is rape though, so that’s already illegal.
No I mean that the BF would say "Don't worry, if we get pregnant I'll support you" and pretend to be all ready for a child and the prospective mother agrees thinking that they're aiming for a kid. And then all of a sudden the kid actually comes and the man fucks off (like they already do with children except even easier now) and the mother is left either as a single parent without any financial support (not agreed on) or aborting a kid they wanted.
Unless you want people to be writing sex and baby contracts now.
The issue is that "well my BF left, time to abort" is not nearly as easy as you imply. If you were wanting a kid and you agreed on it with the idea of having the father in your life, it is going to be painful having to make the choice to abort it because you can't handle it as a single mother.
Abortion is much easier on people who didn't want a kid anyway, it's still pretty emotionally tough on the people who do want children but just know they can't manage having one right now. An important choice for them to be able to make but it's not easy for everyone.
We can't just force deadbeat dads to hang around, nor should we, but things like child support at least provide some aid to the kid and discourage that fuck and dump attitude.
In a country with a good social safety net I'd be a lot more inclined to support male abortion yeah. Without it? No way.
I think we agree on a lot of the same ideas there otherwise.
I already weighed in but there's another thing I want to mention. You covered it sonewhat in your second to last bullet point, but the asymmetry is really out here, getting a (medical) abortion is scary. We're not going to see the end of patriarchy for a while and part of that means men are just not going to be emotionally literate and up to speed on the woman's experience. Men will decide their parenthood by the signing of a hypothetical contract, women have to decide their parenthood by a highly stigmatized and sometimes invasive medical procedure that is frequently associated with trauma, guilt, and shame. It's not the reason we should have forced parenthood for fathers, but it absolutely helps in the decision making process that fathers have serious weight to consider in their decisions too.
(forgive my cishetero framing)
I'm kinda torn about this. Like, I understand the current situation can feel unfair, but it's so much easier to legally distance yourself from the child than to go through with an actual abortion that it just creates another imbalance in favor of the man.
And honestly, if you make a woman pregnant, you have some moral responsibility to support her through it, even if it was an accident. It should be treated as something that happened to both of you, not just her. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think saying you can't just shrug and walk away from the mother of your child is equivalent to trad-caths talking about how you have a responsibility to complete an unwanted pregnancy. Until we have a system where children are raised by the community and this isn't an issue any more, it's a better idea to make sure child support won't break the back of guys with poor economy.
it’s so much easier to legally distance yourself from the child than to go through with an actual abortion
But the alternative is pregnancy and childbirth, which are significantly harder and worse than an abortion (assuming abortions are legal and available). The pregnant person has to go through with some sort of unpleasant medical procedure either way.
Is it really a comfort to have the 'support' of someone who doesn't even want to be part of your/your child's life?
I enjoyed reading most of the discussion here, it's reinforced to me the need to read more theory because simply being for abortion and a safety social net isn't enough as far as societal reframing goes, and the patriarchal gender roles cemented into the "care giver" and "provider" are still running through most of this conversation--not a criticism just makesme want to read more theory. Also just want to say that men can also give birth, not sure that's being recognized as much here
This feels oddly bad faith to me, but I will answer sincerely. I can see how it would put more responsibility on women to ensure that protection is used. I would also say that you should have less time to get a legal abortion than a medical one, so that the birthing party has time to decide of they would like to carry the baby to term.
Honestly, it's easy enough already to be a deadbeat dad, might as well make it a legal process so there's no surprises.
I was tired when I commented so I probably interpreted it wrong. It was just a talking point I've only heard from MRA adjacent circles.
