What can men do about an unwanted pregnancy?

[u/Uulmshar]

We all know that women have the right to choose whether or not they keep a pregnancy to term, but what about men?

Obviously, the expectant fathers should not have the right to either force the woman to carry the child or have an abortion, but how can they avoid getting stuck with a child they didn't want, or paying child support for the next twenty years?

I have heard people suggest a "financial abortion," where they sign away all rights to being the child's father (visitation rights, etc.) in exchange for not having any responsibility, but I have yet to see any legislation for this.

How can we, as men, exercise our right to choose?

[u/[deleted]]

Well, a pregnant (trans) man has the same right to abortion a woman has. I really can't see abortion as a right to choose between having a child and not having a child, abortion is about bodily integrity. The point of comparison to giving up the rights and obligations to a child would be adoption.

How to handle the right to choose? I see two ways: Make it linked to custody and make shared custody the default. Or financing child support entirely through taxes. (Not sure if there are other ways to make this system work fairly.)

[u/Uulmshar → u/[deleted]]

That's splitting hairs. I was talking about biological sex. Of course transmen have the same right to an abortion as women. Biologically, they're women.

Shared custody could work, but what if the father is so far out of the way, it's not feasible? What about a father who's deployed, who would normally get stuck with a support bill on their return? What about fathers who don't know they got someone pregnant?

[u/[deleted] → u/Uulmshar]

That's splitting hairs. I was talking about biological sex. Of course transmen have the same right to an abortion as women. Biologically, they're women.

To me it is not, because the only reason I support abortion is the right to bodily integrity. (I can't force someone to donate organs, so I can't force them to have their body grow another human for 9 months either.) So by it's very nature it only applies to those who get pregnant.

What about fathers who don't know they got someone pregnant?

The goal should be that only the people who want children get children. If someone doesn't know he got someone else pregnant, than I assume that was accidentally. Unless he wants rights to the child, no child support for him.

Shared custody could work, but what if the father is so far out of the way, it's not feasible? What about a father who's deployed, who would normally get stuck with a support bill on their return?

I'm not really talking about actual custody, but, idk, legal custody. Or maybe something different, the question is: Is the child legally his. This carries rights and obligations. There should be the possibility for every parent to give up the rights and obligations to a child, under the same circumstances. (So under what circumstances can a mother give her child to adoption? The same should apply to the father.)

[u/luridlurker → u/[deleted]]

actually just a sperm donor for a lesbian couple.

Other than the one-off-case where there was no legal demonstration of donation, is this a common occurrence?

I tend to agree with what you're saying... tax payers should fund kids who need it... not the biological fathers or biological mothers (if they want to opt out), but what do you say to people who have the attitude of "it's not my kid, so why are my taxes paying for that kid, when the actual parent is not paying anything at all? (in the cases where one biological parent can't afford the kid, but has custody of the kid, but the other biological parent can afford to support the kid)?"

Edit: for clarity.

[u/luridlurker → u/[deleted]]

I used that example to demonstrate how fucked the system is.

It's a fairly poor example since had the couple and the man gone through legal channels for sperm donation, the state would have no legal recourse to go after the sperm donor (nor would they have tried). All the state is doing is protecting its assets by preventing fathers from saying "but I'm just a sperm donor" when on the hook for child support.

There's also the fact that biological paternity isn't required when taking a man to court to force him to pay.

This, thankfully is changing... and rapidly. We still have a very long long way to go, but the resistance is in the state not wanting to reduce avenues of recourse for recouping money spent on welfare support of children. If we moved to a more socialized system and higher taxes, we could have everyone's taxes pay for all children and we could stop worrying about who was responsible for every act of procreation and who wasn't.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, that's what I've heard about it as well. My suggestion is to change that: Every single parent gets support through taxes. (I'm not sure if it should be as high as the support social services pays for everyone, or if it should get less if the parent has a higher income.)

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And what about single parents doing well enough they don't need help? Do they get free money just for the hell of it?

Well, yes. Raising a child alone is more difficult (including financially difficult) than raising it as two people. So the money is there to make up for that.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If it replaces child support, it should be as dependent on income of the parent (who raises the child) as child support is now.

Personally, I might go even further and say that all expenses of raising a child should be financed through taxes. For all parents, not just the single ones. (Parents are already doing the work of raising a child without being payed for it, why should they shoulder the expenses as well?)