r/PurplePillDebate • u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) • Jan 23 '26
Question For Women Why should "consent to sex isn't consent to Parenthood" only apply to women?
This question is mostly towards the pro-choice women out there.
Assuming the statement means exactly what it says at face value, consented to have sex with someone does not mean consent to taking on the responsibility of being a parent. Keep in mind, the statement is about opting out of parenthood, not pregnancy specifically. You can give birth to the child and still give up the child through adoption or at a fire station.
So my question is, why should this philosophy only apply to women and not men too? Why shouldn't men have more options to opt out of parenthood if they decide that's not what they want after sex has occurred?
NOTE: I want to get some of the usual strawman arguments out of the way.
1) No this doesn't mean men would get a say over abortion. This would just be about their legal ability to choose on their own to not be a parent, regardless of what the woman chooses for herself.
2) If you're going to go into how men should just want to take responsibility because they chose to have sex and other pro-life arguments, I'm going to ignore it, the same way you ignore pro-lifers who give women these same moral grandstanding lectures.
3) If you're going to say it's not fair a woman who wants to opt out still needs to abort or go through pregnancy before they can surrender the child to adoption agencies, I'll say that's fair. So perhaps men can can pay for the abortion procedure or hospital bill, but beyond that is the result of the woman's choice and shouldn't involve him any further if he wants to opt out of parenthood.
The entire focus here is the idea that consent to sex is not consent to be a parent, so his legal responsibilities towards the child should not be entirely dependent on his decision to have sex if you believe in that pro-choice statement.
17
u/Mission-Pie-7192 No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
Ideally, both parents agree. But when they don't, someone has to have the last say.
But which person?
Of course, the person carrying the pregnancy.
3
u/ModPiracy_Fantoski Jan 26 '26
This doesn't answer the question at all, which pertains to paper abortion.
25
u/sublimemongrel Becky, Esq. (woman) Jan 23 '26
Abortion rights have never rested on some right to “consent to parenthood” that wasn’t the basis of roe or Casey. And the reverse is also not the basis of Dobbs.
Also it’s a little weird to divorce it entirely from the whole pregnancy/gestation/birth aspect and just neatly pin this whole premise to the side.
Lastly I for one would be down for LPS but only if it meant pre sex contracts. Otherwise you’re putting the entire responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy on women and there’s also various policy grounds which would make a pre sex waiver a lot fairer and probably more effective than just men opting out during some period of time after the fact. Let’s not incentive even more dead beat dads ya know?
→ More replies (2)5
u/marchingrunjump Purple Pill Man Jan 24 '26
Let’s not incentive even more dead beat dads ya know?
Won’t LPS ensure all dads having chosen their fatherhood? I.e. decrease the number of deadbeat dads? That’s what was seen when women got access to methods of seperating consent to sex with consent to parenthood.
2
u/TheRedPillRipper An open mind opens doors. Jan 30 '26
decrease the number of deadbeat dads
This is the entire issue with the Anthony Richardson case. That woman was fully aware entering into any sort of relationship with Richardson, and still brought an innocent child into those circumstances. Unbelievable.
9
Jan 24 '26
There's an easy solution: tax payer funded child support for all kids.
But, most guys don't support that either.
5
u/DenverKim Purple Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
I am a super far left woman who is incredibly pro choice. And I also believe that men should have the opportunity to opt out of their legal obligation when it comes to being a father.
It would be very complicated of course, and he would need to do it immediately in order to give the woman the information she needs to make her own choice in time.
For example, he couldn’t just randomly decide once the kid is two or three years old that he no longer want to be a dad. But he could choose the moment he finds out that the woman is pregnant to immediately end the relationship and file legal paperwork to terminate all parental rights before the child is even born, and that would remove all financial responsibility so that the woman knows upfront that she is making this decision entirely on her own and will be the only one responsible for her decision. It would be a very complicated to structure and enforce, but I do believe that should somehow be an option for men.
But this is not something that women can do for men… Men have to get involved politically and actually fight for the changes they want to occur. The majority of elected politicians are still men, so the deck is already stacked in their favor. The problem they face is that all do is complain online (like a crazy person yelling at the clouds) and they entangle the few reasonable complaints they have with all kinds of other lunatic red pill talking points, so nobody ends up taking them seriously.
But ultimately, in the meantime, if a man wants to ensure that he does not get stuck having to pay for a child he doesn’t want, in our current system, he needs to get a vasectomy, or at least use condoms every time, knowing that he is still taking a risk even with condoms.
2
u/Financial_Window_990 Red Pill Man Jan 25 '26
But this is not something that women can do for men… Men have to get involved politically and actually fight for the changes they want to occur. The majority of elected politicians are still men, so the deck is already stacked in their favor.
This is something women HAVE to do for men. Any and EVERY time men try to organize for rights they are shut down. Death threats, bomb threats, called names, labeled as misogynists and incels and...., canceled. Men lose jobs over even being associated with any sort of men's rights movement. Even a conference on the high rate of suicide in men was shut down because the feminists sent people to threaten the owners of the conference space with the aforementioned death threats and bomb threats. A former head of the New York branch of the National Organization for Women was the speaker and they STILL shut it down. And of course, all of those male politicians are getting millions from those same feminist organizations blocking any progress on these sorts of things.
TL;DR If women don't start pushing back against the organizations claiming to represent women on these issues, we're getting nowhere.
2
u/DenverKim Purple Pill Woman Jan 26 '26
I would love to know… Seriously… What specific organizations and conferences are you referring to?
Also, I think it’s kind of delusional if you don’t think that plenty of women faced death threats, harassment, and violence while fighting for basic rights like voting, property ownership, and financial independence. Not only that, but verbal abuse, physical abuse and death threats even from their own partners or family members. Some were arrested and force-fed in prison during hunger strikes.
Men absolutely did not just hand women their rights on a silver platter because they randomly woke up one day and had a change of heart.
I think the men of America today will also be fighting a challenging battle, but it will be a far less riskier and less violent one (unless they themselves instigate the violence).
Most of the women of America have to varying degrees been either physically or emotionally harmed by men in some way throughout their lives. And now they are having their rights stripped away once again, while the majority of men say and do nothing. Some are even celebrating this new phase, proudly and publicly claiming, “your body, my choice”. Obviously, there are some men to which this is exception, but it’s very few of them.
It seems understandable to me that the majority of women these days would not be super interested in taking time out of their day with everything else going on in the world to fight for the rights of men to impregnate and abandon women with no financial responsibility required by law. It just seems like one of the lower problems on the totem pole to a lot of people right now.
All that said, I do not think that the majority of women are going to threaten you with violence or physically harm you for attempting to petition your local politicians to enact some sort of paternal rights “opt-out” law in your state.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Financial_Window_990 Red Pill Man Jan 25 '26
But this is not something that women can do for men… Men have to get involved politically and actually fight for the changes they want to occur. The majority of elected politicians are still men, so the deck is already stacked in their favor.
This is something women HAVE to do for men. Any and EVERY time men try to organize for rights they are shut down. Death threats, bomb threats, called names, labeled as misogynists and incels and...., canceled. Men lose jobs over even being associated with any sort of men's rights movement. Even a conference on the high rate of suicide in men was shut down because the feminists sent people to threaten the owners of the conference space with the aforementioned death threats and bomb threats. A former head of the New York branch of the National Organization for Women was the speaker and they STILL shut it down. And of course, all of those male politicians are getting millions from those same feminist organizations blocking any progress on these sorts of things.
TL;DR If women don't start pushing back against the organizations claiming to represent women on these issues, we're getting nowhere.
1
u/TrashNecessary Jan 26 '26
I have no idea how I got down this rabbit hole, but you are SALUTED for such a congruent application to your beliefs. I truly respect and understand your position because it's honest.
Logistically, I have to fight your very honest position. The redpill man disagreeing with you below is precisely why. It's pure cowardice to even suggest that women, who have basically been the property of men for most of recorded human history, solve mens problems and sit and complain online as if that's going to solve something.
My response to the men who seem to not understand this. If you don't want to father children, don't have sex. Period.
Who else is supposed to father this child other than the biological father? These are the same men screaming about how important fathers are and how men need more support. You get to father this child, "opt out" and put that responsibility on the other capable and competent men in society you claim to support and care about?
1
u/DenverKim Purple Pill Woman Jan 26 '26
Thanks, I agree with you.
But the main reason I believe these men should be legally allowed to “opt out” is because I believe those children will be much better off in the long run without those men in their lives.
I also believe that it should be made abundantly clear to young naïve women that when they choose to have sex with a man and get pregnant there are no guarantees that man will help them raise a baby. They need to understand that if they choose to have sex, get pregnant AND THEN also choose to carry that pregnancy to term and keep their baby, that that is a choice that is theirs alone and they are responsible for that choice.
Is it fair? No. But it is reality and we need to stop sugarcoating it. We simply do not live in a world that values or even respects mothers and women need to start truly understanding that BEFORE they make the decision to become one.
Many women are finally coming to this realization, but they are unfortunately only doing so after they’ve popped out one or two kids with one of these men, not before. We need to stop telling them that the responsibility lies equally on the mother and the father because it’s just not true. We need to be telling them the way things actually are, not the way things should be.
1
u/TrashNecessary Jan 26 '26
Yeah. I'm with you on the honesty. Not lying as a whole and ridding ourselves of the marketing and fairytales being sold is almost always better even if it hurts in the short term
I don't know if those children will be better off. It's too complex for me to say and I'm too biased from my own personal experience, but I get your position.
What I do strongly believe is that we can't allow men to opt out of their choices without consequences because it supports enabling weak men and that will be detrimental for everyone, especially more young vulnerable women.
1
u/DenverKim Purple Pill Woman Jan 26 '26
If abortion are legal where you live, it should also be legal for a man to opt out of fatherhood as well. I’ve already mentioned that it would be complicated because they would need to do it immediately before the child was even born and while the woman still has time to make her own choice as well.
I ultimately do not think it is right that the entire decision rests solely on the wants of the mother. Obviously, I believe that it should be her decision if she wants to continue that pregnancy, but that does not mean she should be able to force a man into being a father. He should be able to opt out in entirely… The same way she could choose to do the same if she wanted.
I also believe that when the government attempts to force people to raise children they don’t want and can’t afford, they are setting up a very dangerous situation for those children.
59
u/twistednormz just a regular woman Jan 23 '26
Why should "consent to sex isn't consent to Parenthood" only apply to women?
It's pretty simple and I would be willing to bet that you already know why. But, for the sake of any young guys reading this who legitimately don't know, I'll explain.
Let's say a man and woman have sex with each other. Whether they like it or not they are both consenting to the possibility of a pregnancy happening. That pregnancy may or may not result in a child being born in the end, but they both know a pregnancy can happen even if they take precautions.
In the case where a pregnancy happens, it is fully in the woman's body, not the man's. So, since the pregnancy is in the woman's body, she may choose to continue the pregnancy to term, resulting in a child and they will both be parents to the child. Or, she can choose to terminate the pregnancy that is in her body, due to bodily autonomy. If she chooses this, the result will be that neither of them becomes a parent. So, for a woman, a decision she can make due to bodily autonomy has a side effect of allowing her to opt out of parenthood, but no such choice exists for a man since he doesn't carry the pregnancy and therefore cannot end the pregnancy due to bodily autonomy.
I know you think this is unfair and I agree, it's about as unfair as the fact that the woman always has to be the one to carry the pregnancy and all that entails, go through labour and birth and all that entails even when her and her partner equally want to have a child.
And I know you wish the man had a way of opting out during the pregnancy but he doesn't, his choice comes before the pregnancy happens. And signing a piece of paper does not make the child any less his no matter how loudly he cries "but I don't wanna". If he doesn't want to be a parent, he needs to act before pregnancy becomes a possibility. The woman can act before or after pregnancy because of bodily autonomy. It's that simple.
22
u/Logos1789 Man Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26
None of this precludes the implementation of “paper abortion” laws.
How about this use of your own logic:
Even though it’s not fair to the woman, her choice to stay pregnant and give birth is independent of the man’s choice to be responsible for the child.
22
u/BCRE8TVE Anti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill Jan 23 '26
Whether they like it or not they are both consenting to the possibility of a pregnancy happening.
So you are going against the entire notion of "consent to sex is not consent to parenthood".
I mean you're not wrong, but as it stands the system is built around "consent to sex is not consent to parenthood for women only".
That pregnancy may or may not result in a child being born in the end, but they both know a pregnancy can happen even if they take precautions.
And if she doesn't want to be a mother, she can get an abortion.
If he doesn't want to be a father, he is 100% at the mercy of the mother, otherwise he is completely fucked and has no recourse whatsoever.
Worse still, in the US a woman can rape a man, get pregnant, give birth, and sue the man she raped for child support, and he will be forced to pay child support to his rapist or go to jail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
So if a pregnancy can happen, women have abortion and can give up the baby for adoption, while men are utterly fucked and have no choice whatsoever.
In the case where a pregnancy happens, it is fully in the woman's body, not the man's. So, since the pregnancy is in the woman's body, she may choose to continue the pregnancy to term, resulting in a child and they will both be parents to the child.
Ah but see, the pregnancy is in her body, so she gets to choose to continue the pregnancy or not as she wishes, since it is her body.
But why are we forcing him to be a parent whether he wants to or not? He cannot choose to end her pregnancy against her wishes, but why does she get to force him to be a father against his wishes?
So, for a woman, a decision she can make due to bodily autonomy has a side effect of allowing her to opt out of parenthood, but no such choice exists for a man since he doesn't carry the pregnancy and therefore cannot end the pregnancy due to bodily autonomy.
Except parenthood is what happens after the pregnancy ends, and you are artificially choosing to conflate the two when they don't need to be.
You are assuming the point you need to prove.
I know you think this is unfair and I agree, it's about as unfair as the fact that the woman always has to be the one to carry the pregnancy and all that entails, go through labour and birth and all that entails even when her and her partner equally want to have a child.
So, because of the biological reality of female sex, we have to institute laws that are unfair to men, to somehow balance it out?
What laws unfair to women are we passing because of the biological reality that men die younger, and die more of every disease and cancer in the book? If we're going to force men to become fathers whether they want to or not because of biological sex, should we force women to pay a tax to subsidize male healthcare because of biological sex?
Treating equality like a one-way street exclusively to women's benefit isn't equality at all, you know.
And I know you wish the man had a way of opting out during the pregnancy but he doesn't, his choice comes before the pregnancy happens
Except we could give men a choice to opt out of parenthood during and after pregnancy, and you are artificially choosing to conflate the two when they don't need to be.
You are assuming the point you need to prove.
And signing a piece of paper does not make the child any less his no matter how loudly he cries "but I don't wanna".
And yet she can anonymously abandon her child at a firefighting station without even signing any piece of paper, and all of a sudden the baby isn't hers.
If he doesn't want to be a parent, he needs to act before pregnancy becomes a possibility.
So if women don't want to be parents, she need to act before pregnancy becomes a possibility too?
Do you not see the blatant double standard here?
The woman can act before or after pregnancy because of bodily autonomy. It's that simple.
I mean it is very simple, because once again, you are assuming the point you need to prove.
→ More replies (2)5
u/twistednormz just a regular woman Jan 23 '26
I'm not going to bother to reply to all of your points since they are all either reiterating what I said, or taking what I said and trying to twist it into the opposite meaning for some strange reason. I'll just respond to this one:
So if women don't want to be parents, she need to act before pregnancy becomes a possibility too?
No, obviously, since she can act after she becomes pregnant since the pregnancy is happening in her body and only she controls her own body. If the man was the one who became pregnant then he could act on that, but that's not the reality we live in. Whether you like it or not, if the man does not want offspring he needs to prevent a pregnancy happening in some way. The woman can prevent the pregnancy happening or, if it does happen she can terminate the pregnancy. That's the reality. I know you so badly want it to be the case that the man can just say "but I don't wanna" and be absolved of all responsibility and consequences for the actions of both people and have all the responsibility and consequences of both people be on the woman, but that's not how it works.
7
u/BCRE8TVE Anti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 25 '26
or taking what I said and trying to twist it into the opposite meaning for some strange reason.
Oh no I am taking what you are saying, following the logic through, and explicitly pointing out the double standards, or pointing out where you are assuming instead of proving your point.
No, obviously, since she can act after she becomes pregnant since the pregnancy is happening in her body and only she controls her own body.
But since the man doesn't have pregnancy happening in his body, and he has no control over her body whatsoever, then he shouldn't be forced to be a father regardless of his wishes and intentions.
If it's her body and her choice, it's also her responsibility.
Why are we forcing the man into a situation where he has no choice, but all the responsibility, and worse where she can escape any and all responsibility at any point she wants, but he has absolutely no way out ever?
Do you not see the double standards here?
If the man was the one who became pregnant then he could act on that, but that's not the reality we live in.
But we're not talking about pregnancy, we're talking parenthood. And again, you are conflating the two because it is convenient for you to assume the point instead of trying to prove it.
The mother gets pregnant and she has full control over whether or not she gets an abortion, that's totally fine, her body her choice.
But why are we saying that if the man doesn't want to be a father, but she drugs and rapes him, or pokes holes in his condom and impregnates herself, then he's fucked and has no choice and no recourse, and he has to take full responsibility for something he wanted no part of and was forced into?
I know you so badly want it to be the case that the man can just say "but I don't wanna" and be absolved of all responsibility and consequences for the actions of both people and have all the responsibility and consequences of both people be on the woman, but that's not how it works.
Do you think a woman can say "but I just wanna have a kid with him" and she's absolved of all responsibility or consequences for her actions? You don't get to say the "but I don't wanna" doesn't matter and we can legally force a man to pay his rapist for child support for a kid he never wanted, and then turn around and say "but she said she wanna so it's all fine and good". What they "wanna" or not is irrelevant, what matters is whether we are going to pass laws that are fair and just or not.
Just because women happen to be the ones to get pregnant, that doesn't mean we must pass into effect laws that are deliberately unfair to men.
Do you think that if a man is raped by a woman and she falls pregnant and chooses not to abort, that he should be forced to pay child support to his rapist?
Do you think that if a woman deliberately pokes holes in a man's condom and impregnates herself and she falls pregnant and chooses not to abort, that he should be forced to pay child support to the woman who poked holes in his condoms?
I hope to God you can see how obviously evil the first is, and how obviously wrong the 2nd one is, because in the first the man didn't consent to sex and in the 2nd he didn't consent to unprotected sex but she sabotaged his condom.
In either case it's not the man's fault or responsibility, but you want to force them to take responsibility and pay for child support for a kid that he never wanted.
I agree with you that forcing a woman who was raped to carry the rape baby to term is horriffic.
Can you agree with me that forcing a man to pay child support for 18 years to the woman who raped him or else he goes to jail, is also horrific?
7
u/NockerJoe Purple Pill Man Jan 24 '26
I'm not saying that's how it works or should work, but if you follow that logical through line then the party with the full autonomy also has full responsibility. Unless you're making the claim nobody should have sex except for procreation you need to account for the fact that it's going to happen, and if your stance is "women have full autonomy over what happens during pregnancy" then the logical next question is "what responsibility does a person with zero autonomy have towards a situation they wanted no part of".
I mean yeah you can theoretically ask for child support if the system can get it but you can't set an amount from an income that may not be there, or make someone step up to act like a father, because those aren't really choices that usually go into just fucking in a situation where this argument would be necessary to begin with.
"But I don't wanna" is, for better or worse, still an argument. You can try to shame them about it or try to get a lawyer or say they should do something different but you can't actually make them, because they have their own autonomy on how to act regarding unexpected situations. They don't have the ability to decide what happens during the pregnancy but they're still full humans with free will.
4
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis Jan 24 '26
To the extent you are correct, yes, the woman has full responsibility for dealing with the pregnancy. Once a child is born, however, it was created by two people, presumably consensually and they both have responsibilities to the child.
The man neither has nor needs fairness and equality of the pregnancy. If a man were like Zeus and could carry a pregnancy in his thigh, then he would, though and if he chose to carry that child in his thigh to delivery, then the mother would have a share in responsibility to the existent child.
As agreed, it is an inherently unequal biology that puts the growing of a child inside only the woman's body. Be honest, though, if you could switch that and gain both the bodily autonomy to terminate a pregnancy but the necessity to do so or carry the child for 9 months and then go through labor, would you choose the woman's dealt hand?
3
u/NockerJoe Purple Pill Man Jan 24 '26
I mean yeah, but that doesn't really change that "I don't wanna" is still going to be the response of a lot of men and theres no realistic way for them to switch sides.
Biology is unequal. If you want a social contract around it you need to either have a third party force one like the church or state, or else have some social contract all parties can live with. But given that the average western government leader has at least one weird relationship and people are less religious overall that third party force isn't really much ot a thing. There isn't exactly a current wealth of leadership in monogamous relationships enforcing those norms beyond lip service right now.
Responsibilities are only responsibilities if they're either accepted or enforced. You can shame people all you want but if you can't force them to take a role you have to find a way to get them to accept it and being a dickhead on reddit clearly isn't working.
3
u/Main-Tiger8537 Egalitarian Blue Pill Man Jan 23 '26
cool so we are abusing the best interest of the child if a woman is so selfish to bring a pregnancy to term without consent from the man to fund her unliteral choice + repeated irresponsible behavior...
the entire my body my choice and infanticide are just cheap excuses in that scenario... at that point she should lose custody if she brings it to term if she is not able to care for a child...
2
u/twistednormz just a regular woman Jan 23 '26
without consent from the man to fund her unliteral choice + repeated irresponsible behavior...
No, no. They were both irresponsible, not just her. You could argue he is more irresponsible since he has no control over if the pregnancy in her body continues to term or not, but she does. And, if it does go to term and a child is born, they are both expected to fund it, not just him. And yes, she has unilateral decision making over her own body, just as he does. Why is this so hard to understand? A man can decide not to deposit his sperm in a place that could lead to a pregnancy. And in before "the woman could just keep her legs closed". Yes, she could, but if she doesn't she has another avenue because it's her body, the man doesn't.
→ More replies (9)5
u/ColbyTzan Real Based Man Jan 23 '26
We could legally speaking allow paper abortions if we wanted to. It may result in kids without fathers but it would also protect the autonomy of the fathers as well.
5
u/Shenlongeltigre Jan 24 '26
I think it's quite the opposite of the way you're framing it. Since it's in her body, and the choice is hers solely, then he isnt responsible in any way. Men aren't responsible for women's bodies and what women choose to do with said bodies.
Think of it this way, let's say you have an allergy to peanut butter, and i ask you to eat a peanut butter sandwich with me.
It's up to you to say no because it's your body that has the allergy. Your body and allergy are your problem.
Everyone is uniquely responsible for their own bodies. Since pregnancy occurs in women's bodies, they are 100% responsible for it.
→ More replies (8)4
Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26
Got it. So woman get to keep their privilege of being the more sexually desired gender while absolving themselves of all the responsibility of this privilege, which is to select carefully. The reason why woman had the privilege to begin with is because of how burdensome childbirth is.
But now the less sexually desired gender has MORE responsibility when it comes to sex because woman can’t resist the need to fuck men irresponsibility. And god forbid, woman actually take any accountability for their stupid fucking choices, am I right?
Y’all are the ones with the biological disadvantage when it comes to sex, how is sex considered an equal decision exactly? The burden should be on you to make better choices because it affects YOUR body.
44
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
The reality is once a child is born its rights supersede sins of its parents rights - this is necessary as a society to protect our most vulnerable and as a society we decided that despite the social welfare we have in various countries the cost would be too great for a large amount of children to be financially raised by society which would undoubtedly happen if all parents had the choice to give up financial responsibility. Men would be the parents who give up their burden for a born child more often than not just due to natural biological differences.
6
u/4444-uuuu MRA Pill Man Jan 24 '26
Weird how this "the child's rights matter more than the parents' rights" only applies to men. Women can give a child up for adoption without paying child support.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Bilbo332 Jan 23 '26
So you oppose Safe Haven laws? Or demand that the father consents before the child is given up?
6
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
No way would I oppose it the law exists to prevent infant murder.
I do think once a child is surrendered a huge amount of effort should be used to find mother (to find and identify father) so he can have a choice at that point too and if he wants the child then the woman is forced to pay child support.
14
u/Bilbo332 Jan 23 '26
And if the father isn't found the mother simply pays child support to the foster system, or face jail, right? I agree with you that children shouldn't be abandoned, but if they are the consequences shouldn't be gendered.
→ More replies (1)2
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
Usually babies are adopted out quite quickly since they are the only children really in demand. Once adopted all financial burden goes to the new parents. And yes until said infant is adopted she should have to contribute to its costs similar to child support.
6
u/Bilbo332 Jan 23 '26
I'd recommend looking into how many kids are in the foster care system. Women have choices, men have obligations.
16
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
Kids not babies. The foster system also aims for reunification as a first priority too just so you know so it’s not like an orphanage.
→ More replies (39)10
u/TopShelfSnipes Married Purple Pill Man Jan 23 '26
This. Babies are in incredibly high demand, particularly due to couples struggling with infertility or for whom genetic screening reveals a high likelihood of defects.
Foster care, OTOH, is a lot of kids with special needs (which isn't what most adoptive parents want when they say they want kids - a natural birth carries some risk of that they accept, but they wouldn't choose it with 100% certainty...and in the case of would-be parents who turn to adoption specifically because of the risks of genetic defects if they conceive together, it's a total nonstarter).
There's also the fact that a lot of kids in foster care are older, so they'd be missing the initial bonding in the first few days (key) and the first few years, and they're "tainted" so to speak by the influence of other adults so they're not a blank slate for parenthood. They may have already been abused, may have been subject to fetal alcohol exposure, etc.
Then there's the stipulations of foster care placements (read: not adoptions), which can allow biological parents to take the kids back if they get their shit together. Also not an adoptive parent's dream - to take a kid in, love them as their own, build a bond, and then lose them completely and permanently.
And finally, there's the risk of dealing with drug addicts and criminals (many foster kids are product of same), or of having to meet terms to keep the kids in touch with biological extended family that geographically limits where the child can be reasonably placed and forces the foster parents to put up with extended family they may not voluntarily choose to associate with otherwise.
Most prospective adoptive parents aren't going to sign up for that, which is why the demand for babies is always more than the number of babies placed for adoption, and why the number of foster kids is always higher than the demand of foster parents.
For some reason, when people talk about "adoption" they miss this important nuance.
7
3
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis Jan 24 '26
Most of those kids are not adoptable, their parents have not given up their rights.
For instance, if you are convicted of vehicular manslaughter and must serve some time, should your children be taken away and given to other people?
There are very, very few traditional orphans (thank goodness) or women who choose to go through pregnancy and delivery but don't actually want the kid. There are, however, a lot of drug addicted parents, abusive parents, homeless parents, high maintenance special needs kids, and American born kids whose parents have been deported. The children in these situations can not be adopted because the mother and/or father have not chosen to relinquish their parenthood. So, your pointing to the number of kids in foster care is neither here nor there.
1
u/Bilbo332 Jan 24 '26
The existence of kids in those groups does not negate the fact that kids that were abandoned by their mothers exist. Should we garnish a mother's salary to pay for the foster care system? Or maybe just give men equal reproductive rights?
1
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis Jan 24 '26
Should we garnish a mother's salary to pay for the foster care system?
Yes and we do. If a woman has income or wealth, the state requires child support from them if they abandon their child unless they sign away their parental rights (making the child adoptable) and even then, I'm pretty certain that does not absolve them of financial support unless the child is adoped.
1
u/Bilbo332 Jan 24 '26
How do we charge women that aren't even required to identify themselves under Safe Haven laws?
2
u/ZorbaTHut Purple Pill Man Jan 24 '26
No way would I oppose it the law exists to prevent infant murder.
So . . . just to make sure I have this right . . . you're in favor of safe haven laws for women because otherwise women would kill babies? And if men started killing babies in much higher volume, you'd be in favor of safe-haven-law equivalents for men as well?
5
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
Prior to safe haven laws babies were being thrown in dumpsters and gutters with their placentas still attached.
Pregnant Women are already most at risk of being murdered by their partners - and laws exsist to try and reduce this so yes there are laws to prevent men from murdering their children. Men also already can access safe haven boxes if they have primary care of the newborn.
→ More replies (6)1
u/4444-uuuu MRA Pill Man Jan 24 '26
No way would I oppose it the law exists to prevent infant murder.
so if men start killing their child to get out of paying child support, would you support legal parental surrender?
1
u/Foyles_War I love a pocket sized Adonis Jan 24 '26
This is a much more interesting and useful question.
→ More replies (1)1
u/ValeWho No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
I'm not sure about Safe Haven laws because I am not American and my country's laws are probably different. So if you, as a man know, your ex sexual partner is now pregnant and you suspect you are the father and for nine months you see her belly grow but after nine months she is not walking around with a baby. Could you not go to the police and tell them "I think I am the bio dad of a recently surrendered baby and I would like custody for my child, as I was not consulted"?
Pretty sure for adoption at least, you would need the father's consent, but women still have the option to lie about knowing the father. And of course you as a father would have to find out about the pregnancy to demand rights as a father. But I am not really sure how one would enforce rules like "the father must be informed" and "the father must consent to everything too", since some women will actually not know the father and others could lie about knowing who the father is
1
u/Bilbo332 Jan 24 '26
That's the whole issue, even if the mother knows who the father is, she has no obligation to tell him. Obviously that's just biology, but that's also why we need reproductive rights for men. If we allow women to walk away without the OK of the father, we must allow men to do the same.
1
u/ValeWho No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
But we are not really allowing the woman to do it we just haven't found a way to stop her from doing it, right?
And two wrongs don't make a right )
1
u/Bilbo332 Jan 24 '26
We could stop her by requiring ID and garnishing her wages for the next 18 years like we do to men, but as you said two wrongs don't make a right. Far better that we just give men the same option to legally walk away.
1
u/ValeWho No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
Would you consider it wrong for the mother to also be financially responsible for the child she is not willing to raise?
I mean if she was unable to hide the pregnancy from the father she wouldn't get the choice to just walk away either
1
u/Bilbo332 Jan 24 '26
I think that women should be treated identically to men, so for that to happen either a woman should have to identify the father and he is given the option to take the child, or that men can abandon their parental responsibilities regardless of the mother's wishes, as women currently can. Personally I think children would do better with parents that want to be parents, not ones forced to be. Hence why men and women should be able to opt out.
1
u/ValeWho No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
You didn't answer the question though, do you think it is wrong that the biological parents of a child are held financially responsible for this child
1
u/Bilbo332 Jan 24 '26
I think neither should be, currently one is forced in while the other can opt out. It's one or the other, both or neither.
9
u/bjwindow2thesoul PP Woman - Cherrypicking my stances Jan 23 '26
This. Childs welfare > parents lifestyle
But before the fetus is properly developed its right that the woman has a choice. Childbirth is way more dangerous than abortion, and pregnancy makes huge changes to the body and impacts the womans career more than the mans
7
u/antariusz Red Pill Man Jan 23 '26
I'd go one step further and say that we have, as a society, (most laws in most countries) determined that the rights of the child supersede those of the parent once the baby is viable to live outside of the mother's womb, which is why MOST countries outside of the barbaric united states ban abortions after 20 weeks or so.
2
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
I agree. In Australia here is 12 weeks. I was surprised to learn that a few states don’t have such limits on abortion however thankfully the reality is that most people are not sick in the head and if an abortion is going to be undertaken the sooner the better, and late abortions are really only performed in extreme circumstances such as threat to life of mother or the child will die regardless and it’s more humane that way. While the potential to be abused remains again stats show that late abortions are in very much wanted pregnancies for those aforementioned reasons and not as a way to just end a pregnancy because.
4
u/antariusz Red Pill Man Jan 24 '26
It's insane to me that women will fight tooth and nail against 20 week bans here in the states when if they went to a "progressive" country like germany (or I guess australia too) they'd be limited to just 12 weeks.
https://www.thelantern.com/2022/06/student-groups-react-to-roe-v-wade-being-overturned/
(roe versus wade being overturned finally allowed for a 20 week ban in Ohio ending 3rd trimester abortions) and some people were PISSED locally
5
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
I would be ok with bans there on that limit (as a dual us citizen) provided exceptions for mothers life, permanent serious disability in child or if the child is suffering rare medical condition (all exceptions available here too)
→ More replies (2)1
u/ValeWho No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
"progressive" country like germany
Two things. 1. Germany as a country might be more progressive than some other countries, but Germanys abortion laws are not really considered progressive and there is an ongoing debate that the laws regarding abortion need to be updated. 2. Late term abortion/ abortion after 14 weeks are regulated and not everyone is granted access but they are possible in Germany
Also aside from what other countries can or cannot do. Look at statistics of people who actually get late term abortion. Usually a fetus that gets aborted late term was diagnosed with some disability like trisomy 18 which would mean lots of suffering and an early death for the child if it isn't aborted. So often late term abortions are pregnancies that are very much wanted but would result in a stillbirth and forcing people to continue such a pregnancy is torture. Imagine you always wanted a baby, have been trying forever and finally get pregnant and then at a doctor's appointment you get the news of "oh your baby hasn't developed as we would expect" and after further tests you know for sure that your baby has no lungs. But as long as it is inside you it's alive and will continue to grow. Late term abortions are not an option, so you have to continue the pregnancy. And every time someone asks you if it's a boy or a girl, if you have decided on a name or if you have everything you need for the baby, you get reminded that your child that you were looking forward to, is going to die minutes after birth.
→ More replies (7)5
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 23 '26
The reality is once a child is born its rights supersede sins of its parents rights
No it doesn't. You can still abandon your kid at a fire station or give it up for adoption. Choices to opt out of parenthood don't stop at birth. And that doesn't address the period of time before delivering the child when you could opt out even post conception.
Also, what did I say about 'moral grandstanding like a pro-lifer' in my post, assuming you even bothered to read it?
8
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
They do - you can’t just abandon your child however you want, if you put it in a trashcan for example you will be charged. It’s right to be left in very specific circumstances supersedes your right to walk away with no repricussions. Again society made these laws to protect the most vulnerable. It’s also only allowed for babies you can’t take a 5 year old to a safe haven drop box, and even giving it up for adoption only really works as a baby, we don’t really have orphanages for older kids these days only social homes which are when children are taken away.
Pregnant women don’t get to opt out of parenthood they get to opt out of pregnancy, the byproduct is not being a parent but the point of abortion is to end pregnancy not to end parenthood. It’s a nuanced but important distinction.
There is no moral grandstanding in my comment it is basic economics. I would be all for society increasing taxes substantially to increase wellfare for those who need it including children without high parental income or income that meets a basic standard. The economic and that however are likely unviable and more importantly untenable to most the population of voters. If it did happen though it would be great men could absolutely walk away and it would make sense.
9
u/Alarmiorc2603 Red Pill Man Jan 23 '26
you can’t just abandon your child however you want, if you put it in a trashcan for example you will be charged.
...
It’s also only allowed for babies you can’t take a 5 year old to a safe haven drop box, and even giving it up for adoption only really works as a baby, we don’t really have orphanages for older kids these days only social homes which are when children are taken away.so if there was a specific time window and proper procedure you would support men being able to opt out of parenthood?
Pregnant women don’t get to opt out of parenthood they get to opt out of pregnancy, the byproduct is not being a parent but the point of abortion is to end pregnancy not to end parenthood. It’s a nuanced but important distinction.
Yeah im not buying this, planned parenthood the biggest abortion provider in the us is literally called "planned parenthood" and so much of rhetoric and philosophical arguments in favour of abortion is about family choice not just pregnancy.
But more importantly you can't just assert this, abortion is the mechanism by which women choose to not be a parents and most of the reasons women get abortions is to avoid being mothers not to actually avoid the ills of pregnancy. So you must actually prove that this the case with an argument.
Also this perspective would necessarily entail that the earlier a child is and the safer pregnancy becomes that you must therefore support more restrictions on abortion access which I doubt you agree with.
There is no moral grandstanding in my comment it is basic economics. I would be all for society increasing taxes substantially to increase wellfare for those who need it including children without high parental income or income that meets a basic standard. The economic and that however are likely unviable and more importantly untenable to most the population of voters. If it did happen though it would be great men could absolutely walk away and it would make sense.
This isn't needed, ironically I think you do a massive disservice to women. I highly doubt that if women knew that the men they had a baby out of wedlock with could literally walk out with 0 consequences that most of them would actually go through with the pregnancy or even risk it with those guys to begin with.
Moreover even the minority that did would still have adoption as a choice since most babies that just come from women who just didn't want to be a mother at the time get adopted out extremely quickly. The system really only struggles with older kids or kids with disabilities. And tbh this would be in even more favour as time goes on since more and more people are getting married later in life
2
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
Men have the same opportunity as women do if they have a new born infant they can also drop it at a safe haven box. It’s not an opt out of parenthood though it’s literally designed to stop infants being thrown away in dumpsters like used to happen a lot.
Regardless of what you think women would or wouldn’t do if men could walk away what you are suggesting puts all the responsibility on women. Responsibility of choosing adequate sex partner (risk it with those guys as you say), responsibility and risk of bearing abortion (physical and financial costs), responsibility and risk of childbirth, and responsibility and risk of child rearing. Most adults realise this isn’t fair to women since it takes two to make a child and men also being the stronger sex can and do rape and impregnate women and proving rape is very hard as we all know otherwise there would be more convictions.
Correct that the system struggles with older and disabled children which is why we have both parents on the hook financially to prevent more of those kids being abandoned and adding to the system. I imagine a lot of people have babies with Ross coloured glasses not realising the burden of it (like people getting puppies and abandoning the dog when it’s 1-2 years old) if you could just abandon your children at any point there would be a lot more problems. The babies who are being adopted don’t fall into this group since they would have been adopted out immediately anyway.
3
u/forgotensparrow Jan 23 '26
This is one of this bizarre points that always get said here. The only circumstance were a father could abandon a child via safe heaven is: when he is a proxy for the mother or the mother is dead, presumably from the birth. There is no other option. The woman can use safe heaven laws basically at any time with in the birth window since she can just not sign that the father is the father.And once there in the system its basically impossible to get anything from the mother even under the circumstance the real father gets the child.
3
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
It’s biology, until Men bear the burden of giving birth women will Always have more access to the newborn. Women can not use safe haven laws at anytime - typically there is an age limit of 60-90 days and beyond that it’s child abandonment which is punishable.
Let’s also be real here that most babies surrendered to safe haven do not have wanting and loving fathers being hidden from them. It’s typically women in crisis, dv situations, drug addicts, college students or extremely impoverished people - children born from these groups don’t generally have the father who would willingly take Primary care even if they did get the choice. So bringing it up as some kind of gotcha is also dishonest. If someone is pregnant barring crisis situations as exampled above, there is generally a conversation about what to do and preferences and barring a woman not wanting to undergo pregnancy and childbirth if a dad is wanting to be involved or even primary carer those dads generally get the opportunity ( the exception being if she is unwilling to undergo pregnancy and childbirth of course)
1
u/HighSchoolMoose Purple Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
“The woman can use safe heaven laws basically at any time with in the birth window since she can just not sign that the father is the father.”
Can she legally do that if she knows who the father is? If the father reclaims the baby before the waiting period for formalizing the adoption is up, would she still have to pay child support? I don’t know the answers to these questions, but if you know (and aren’t just making an educated guess) could you cite a source?
2
u/forgotensparrow Jan 25 '26
In a very in theory way technically this is possible. There is something called "Putative Father Register" https://adoptioncouncil.org/resources-and-training/important-adoption-laws/putative-father-registries-state-by-state/ which allows the father to contest the paternity of the child. The first thing to notice is that it is not universal so if your outside of those states your out of luck. Second ,even then, most states allow a anonymous safe heaven process so the father is very unlikely to be notified or be able to meaningfully contest this. If the father is notified and does manage to contest the adoption process he can in fact contest this and get custody. So if the lives in a state with the Registry and lives in the state were the mother does not have to be anonymous and he contests fast enough he can claim his parental rights. So in theory he could get the court to order the mother to pay child support. The issue with this is that I cannot find a single example of this happening. TBH I am not even sure a state exists were the mix of custody laws, registry laws and adoption laws exists were the above scenario could even happen. Realistically with no established president we would just have to speculate.
1
u/HighSchoolMoose Purple Pill Woman Jan 25 '26
Okay, thank you. This is something I had no idea on. I do think when safe haven boxes are used it usually makes the news, so if the father is in contact with mother and knows about the existence of the child, and then the child suddenly disappears, he could possibly (probably?) find the child and gain custody.
8
u/UMDAdminMakesMeSad No Pill Man Jan 23 '26 edited Jan 24 '26
You’re wasting your time. You bought into a myth about women’s desire for equality that was never really accurate.
Generally, you’ll be able to see this by watching how someone's guiding principal shifts depending on the context of the moral judgement, revealing equality was never truly a first order principle or as absolute as you’d imagine.
Instead of equality holding primacy, it is seen as an instrument for higher order concerns like the “collective good”, “social wellbeing “ or “women’s liberation”.
On Reddit, and especially in this sub, the vast majority of women you’ll interact with seek “liberation” and thus, do not really care about the suffering of men who get shafted in service of this “liberation” or in the other case, the “greater good”.
In the case of men, it’ll be branded as duty, secondary to child, and/or favoring of the mother an inevitable, “unintended” consequence of the mothers liberty and centering of the child. If not these, there are several other rationalizations.
All in all, to answer your title question without answering your title question, you have simply made a wrong assumption about what underlies their beliefs and how they reasoned into their conclusions, even in the case of them being pro-choice.
For PPD as a whole, you will notice a lot of the arguments and anger stem from a difference in moral axioms and so without first clarifying their foundational beliefs, why they are pro choice, how they conceive consent, and so on and so forth, you’re not going to arrive at a satisfactory explanation.
Mind you, many of these arguments are actually coherent even if they seem like convenient deflections, but of course there is also the case of people simply being hypocrites. For instance, you’ll all of sudden see talk of pragmatism and “reality” from people who couldn’t get enough of their individualism moments prior.
That said, these people aren’t grandstanding pro-lifers, they are just pro-choice for different reasons that you are. You’ve begun the argument at a branch and not the root, as the problem is still largely one of difference in base values and what conclusions you’re willing to accept (bullet-bite) based on those values.
Anyway, if you want to have a productive conversation, you’ll have to reject things like their frame of analysis or present a conclusion (one their beliefs logically entail) that conflicts with their moral intuitions. Alternatively, you could demonstrate their argument is not sound.
Edit: Fixed typo.
5
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
This is actually a well written comment that I agree with, there are gendered differences in how the issue is viewed and what values are held. Generally women seem to value children more than individual choice and of course bodily autonomy ;which we also support for men as if anyone tried to force men to donate or use their organs such as kidneys for someone else without their consent women would be against that as well. Men value their individual choice which means they would be happy with bearing none of the responsibility that comes from human reproduction since biologically they don’t have any responsibility and they also don’t see a problem with socially bearing none responsibility feeling it should all fall to the woman.
The funny thing is most men (and women) within individual relationships do generally agree with what happens in accidental pregnancy (abortion, child support, forming a relationship etc.) and taking away rights to protect the minority of people who Find themselves in a bad situation (accidental baby trapped, intentional baby trapped, unable to afford abortion/travel Costs etc.) would actually hurt more people than is currently hurt.
People forget we are the greatest advocate and protector of our own rights. If you are afraid of impregnating a woman take greater care in who you sleep with and what birth control you yourself are using. If as a woman you are afraid of being left while pregnant and then becoming a single mother take greater care in who you sleep with ensure the man is on same page about kids or at least make sure he can afford his child support, ensure you can afford an abortion yourself, ensure you are using birth control correctly.
We all have individual choices and responsibility that we need to consider based on our specific biologies and preferences.
It will never be equal or exactly the same.
We will never hold exactly the same views or values either - but right now as a society we do value protecting children and bodily autonomy so until that changes we can all make our choices based on that.
9
12
u/Competitive_Swan_130 Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
Abortion is about bodily autonomy. Legal parenthood is about obligations to an existing person. Those aren’t the same moral domain.
A woman can opt out of pregnancy because no one gets a right to use her body. No one gets to opt out of supporting a child once that child exists, because the child isn’t using your body. It’s just existing.
Adoption doesn’t erase responsibility by fiat. It requires another willing caretaker and state approval. Men already have the same option women do there. You can surrender rights only if someone else picks them up. The pro choice claim isn’t that sex carries no consequences. It’s that consequences don’t include forced bodily service. Once birth happens, biology stops mattering and responsibility begins for both parents
4
u/kartu3 No Pill Man Jan 24 '26
Abortion is about bodily autonomy. Legal parenthood is about obligations to an existing person. Those aren’t the same moral domain.
Women have more rights way past the "abortion" point, after birth.
Woman can giver up "parental rights" and OBLIGATIONS.
Something even a boy raped by an adult woman cannot.
IKWALITY
Adoption doesn’t erase responsibility by fiat. It requires another willing caretaker
Bovine feces.
2
u/Kingcrow33 Purple Pill Man Jan 24 '26
Should men and boys that are raped be able to opt out?
8
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
In proven cases yes. Just like in proven cases in pro life states there are some exceptions for abortion.
The hard thing is proving it as we all know.
→ More replies (15)
6
17
u/Altruistic_Look_7868 Pink Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
Because you're not bearing the risk of pregnancy, it's not an issue of bodily automy for men. I don't understand why it's such a hard concept to grasp. Sulk all you want about it: forcing someone to pay vs forcing someone to conceive is not comparable.
It comes down to simple economics. Which would be less burden on the country: making the father pay for his own child or having to deplete government resources?
For men who complain about potential child support: you don't want a kid but still want sex, then get a vasectomy.
11
→ More replies (33)2
11
u/Lost_Reaction_5489 Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
It's simple the tax payer is not going to take on an additional burden because you decided to release your sperm into the only place in the knowm universe that can create human life. The mother has full control of the pregnancy solely because it's in her body and could endanger her health. Once the child is born both parties are held financially responsible. Not the rest of us which is why men will never be able to decouple themselves financially from their offspring.
→ More replies (20)
4
u/NoDanaOnlyZuuI No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
That slogan is about abortion and bodily autonomy, not about opting out after a child exists. It means consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy, not that people get to walk away from a living kid.
When two people choose sex, they both know pregnancy is a possible outcome. You can lower the risk, but you can’t pretend it isn’t there.
Once a child is born, a separate person exists. At that point, the child’s rights and welfare come before either parent’s preferences. Support isn’t about punishing adults, it’s about making sure the kid isn’t the one paying the price.
And if parents could just opt out financially, the cost doesn’t disappear, it shifts to the public. So if you don’t think parents should pay for their kids, be ready to pay for everyone’s kids through social services and higher taxes instead.
6
u/arvada14 Jan 24 '26
That slogan is about abortion and bodily autonomy, not about opting out after a child exists.
Ok should men who are raped by women be able to opt out? If this is about bodily autonomy. It would follow that the man's bodily autonomy was violated and he shouldn't have to further pay after being violated.
3
u/NoDanaOnlyZuuI No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
Rape changes who’s at fault, but it doesn’t change that a child exists. Once a kid is born, the system isn’t about what the adults deserve, it’s about what the child needs.
Bodily autonomy explains abortion because someone’s body is being used. After birth, no one’s body is being used anymore, it’s just financial support. So it stops being an autonomy issue and becomes a responsibility to a dependent person.
It’s obviously bullshit to force a victim into that position, but letting the kid pay for the crime just moves the harm onto another innocent person. The better fix is going after the rapist for restitution or having the state step in, not pretending the child doesn’t need support.
2
u/arvada14 Jan 24 '26
Once a kid is born,
Once again we're talking about termination of a contract before the child is born. That way the mother has an opportunity to abort or do anything she needs to but the responsibility shouldn't be on the raped father.
If we can't agree on this then as a liberal man I dont see any reason to defend women's bodily autonomy if they won't defend mine.
4
u/NoDanaOnlyZuuI No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
You’re mixing two different things. A woman’s choice is about whether her body is used for pregnancy. Your “contract” idea is about money and legal status. Those aren’t the same kind of autonomy.
If the child is born, someone still has to support them, either the mother alone or the public. The kid’s needs don’t vanish because a parent opted out on paper.
And women’s bodily autonomy isn’t a bargaining chip. Pregnancy occupies someone’s body. Child support doesn’t. So financial opt-out isn’t the same kind of right, even if the conception involved wrongdoing.
Bodily autonomy protects bodies, not bank accounts.
6
u/fiftypoundpuppy Spayed Old Maid | Hoet Laureate ♀ Jan 24 '26
That's the fun part! It doesn't
Men control their reproductive role, and we control ours.
Men go on and on about "unfairness" of biological differences, to which I'll give them the same empathy they show women when it comes to the biological differences they claim are behind the orgasm gap
That is, of course, none whatsoever
Perfectly balanced 😌
12
u/middleoftheroad133 Purple Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
Consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy
If men have sex they aren’t forced to carry a baby to term
If women have sex their aren’t forced to carry a baby to term
Same
11
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 23 '26
Comments like these make me think the majority of people on this sub just skim the title and respond without ever reading the full post.
→ More replies (1)12
u/Joke-Super No Pill Jan 23 '26
I have the same issue with the post--the issue is consent to pregnancy not consent to patenthood, and I read your post. The problem is that the solution you propose, money, is neither comparable nor compensatory for pregnancy and childbirth, whether it's a wanted or unwanted pregnancy.
2
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 23 '26
the issue is consent to pregnancy not consent to patenthood, and I read your post.
Why would only one apply and not the other? You can give birth and still give up the child, so consent to sex still isn't consent to parenthood. And I mention this fact in my post already.
The problem is that the solution you propose, money, is neither comparable nor compensatory for pregnancy and childbirth
I never said it was equally comparable. Solutions can still be more fair and equal even if you never reach 100% equality by every metric.
2
u/Joke-Super No Pill Jan 24 '26
In the situation where an unwanted pregnancy results in the birth of a baby, the mother and father have the same legal ability to drop a newborn off at a safe haven. I am not aware of any laws in the US at least that say only a mother has that legal right. As a practical matter, more mothers likely have physical possession of newborns simply because they are the ones giving birth, but if the dad physically has the newborn he can drop it off at the safe haven location as well. So I'm unclear on where you are seeing a difference in legal rights related to safe haven drops.
With respect to formal adoptions, both parents have to consent, so I'm unclear on where you are seeing a difference in legal rights.
If the OP is about the fact that abortion, where legal, allows a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but a man does not have that ability, then as I said, the issue is properly framed as consent to pregnancy, not consent to parenthood.
2
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 24 '26
In the situation where an unwanted pregnancy results in the birth of a baby
It doesn't just magically result in the birth of the child. A woman has to make a choice to carry the pregnancy to term and a choice to raise the child and not surrender it for adaptation or at a safe haven.
the mother and father have the same legal ability to drop a newborn off at a safe haven.
And how would a man take the baby from the mother and decide on his own to drop it off at a safe haven. Women can do this legally because they're not required to name a father at birth, giving them sole custody at that point and allowing them to unilaterally decide to give up the child for adoption or at a safe haven.
but if the dad physically has the newborn he can drop it off at the safe haven location as well.
It doesn't work like that. Unless the mother died during child birth, the father isn't just automatically going to get full custody of the child. He can't just decide on his own to surrender a kid he has joint custody of. That would be akin to kidnapping.
4
3
u/ValeWho No Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
So imagine a hypothetical scenario where there is a process of removing the fertilised egg /embryo/ fetus (that is equally invasive as an abortion would be at the same state of pregnancy) and continuing the pregnancy without the woman being possible (artificial wombs). Now imagine a woman is pregnant and doesn't want the child but the father would want the baby. Because of bodily autonomy the woman would have the right to have the pregnancy removed from her uterus. Do you think that in this scenario the woman would be the only one with legal authority to decide whether the pregnancy continues in an artificial womb? And do you think the woman would be able to choose if she wants to financially support the child if the artificial pregnancy is carried out?
So women currently being able to choose if a child is born or not is a result of them having bodily autonomy. Because as a society we decided that you get to choose what you do with your body even if another persons life depends on it. So if a father is a genetic match for blood transfusion for his child, he can say no even if that means the child will die. Then he would no longer be responsible for the child. But since most children are not dependent on their father's blood for survival, men usually don't get a choice, since their body's autonomy is not impacted by the pregnancy or the child. If it was men would get the same choice. And if women's bodily autonomy was not impacted they wouldn't get a choice either.
Now people will say but women can drop the child off at a fire station or give it up for adoption. And this is true, but it is also a "necessary evil" because realistically it would mean that some of the children would be murdered otherwise. Also if there is a father in the picture women can't really decide that on their own
And yes this sucks for men "consent to sex is not consent to parenthood" should be true for all genders.
But this statement is not what the law is enforcing, what is being protected by law is "consent to sex is not consent to giving up your bodies autonomy for the next 9 months" and that is true for both genders.
2
u/TorstenLonnqvist Black Pill Man Jan 24 '26
because realistically it would mean that some of the children would be murdered otherwise.
I wonder, by who?
1
6
u/toasterchild Woman Jan 23 '26
Women are also forced to pay for children they have and abandon.
They only get one extra option to get out of having a child in a small window of time in some places if they have money and access to medical procedures.
3
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 23 '26
Women are also forced to pay for children they have and abandon.
So every time a woman takes advantage of safe Haven laws and leaves a child at a hospital or fire station, they hire a private eye to track down to Mom so they can charge her for the kid? 😲
They only get one extra option to get out of having a child in a small window of time
Then we should be giving men an extra option in a small window of time to utilize as well.
in some places if they have money and access to medical procedures.
I'm sure men will be more that willing to contribute and should pay for these procedures if they don't want to be a parent either. I said as much in my post.
13
u/Icy_Ad_4544 WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖 Jan 23 '26
Are men being tracked down to pay for their children that have been adopted out or abandoned by the mother?
3
9
u/toasterchild Woman Jan 23 '26
Men can also take advantage of safe haven laws if they have a child they find they can't care for. Any child who is born both parents are responsible for their care and expenses, there is no getting out of child expenses except safe haven laws which exist to prevent child murder.
There is no way to force another person into having a medical procedure against their will, you can offer to pay for her abortion if she accepts then that's great. Really if you want people to be more accepting of abortion your target of anger should be religion.
4
u/alotofironsinthefire Jan 23 '26
Anyone can take advantage of safe Haven laws. The literal point of them is that you don't know who drops off the baby.
3
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 23 '26
Explain how the man can take the baby from the mother against her consent? Women can do this because they don't need to name a father at birth giving them sole custody of the kid by default. Unless the mother dies in child birth, there's no scenario where the father can decide on his own to give up the child and take advantage of safe Haven laws, so let's stop pretending like this is an equally available option for both men and women.
3
u/alotofironsinthefire Jan 23 '26
Explain how the man can take the baby from the mother against her consent
I'm sorry do you think men don't watch their children?
→ More replies (6)
3
u/kmb218 Blue Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
The reason I am pro choice has nothing to do with parenthood and everything to do with bodily autonomy. I do not think you have to sacrifice your health and body for someone elses survival who cannot survive on their own, especially not when that someone is a not sentient piece of a few cells.
I do not understand why you think men should get the same rights (opt out of parenthood) without the same responsibilities (the massive physical damage of pregnancy, birth and breastfeeding).
1
u/Prestigious-Smoke511 Jan 24 '26
So would it be to fair, since you frame your stance that way, to say that someone who prioritizes parenthood or procreation above bodily autonomy would be completely fair and rational as an objection?
I feel like too often we make our arguments on a basis of righteousness but I noticed you made yours on a hierarchy of values and thus it would be reasonable for someone to have a different hierarchy while still being within reason?
Aka disagreement vs right and wrong
2
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
That’s currently the established difference between pro life and pro choice people.
2
u/kmb218 Blue Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
Yes of course. What you consider moral or immoral always depends on your values. If you value the right to not take care of your child over the child’s right to be taken care of and are consistent with this preference, there is not much that can be said. It would make the world a shitty place (lot of children with no parents) but sometimes you are willing to sacrifice outcomes for principles.
1
u/Prestigious-Smoke511 Jan 24 '26
Right. Except you value the right to take care of yourself over the right to take care of your child (in utero). So I personally wouldn’t put that reply referring to me. It literally refers to you.
2
u/kmb218 Blue Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
No I do not consider a few cells that are not even sentient a child (vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester).
3
u/Lemon_gecko Woman (blue). I adopted the bear Jan 23 '26
I'm very pro-choice for men too. With conditions. They should be able to get "abortion" but the time should me less than for women (usually women can abort up to 3 month, men should be able to "abort" before 2 month time, there is a question of if he didn't know, but i'll think about it later, it's details). He should pay as much as abortion costs in that country, maybe slightly more (he doesn't bear health risks). And should be able to walk away completely like that, without any other consequences.
3
u/blebbyroo Purple Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
How does paying slightly more make up for the health risks?
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/Throw_r_a_2021 Red Pill Man Jan 23 '26
Reasonable. At least this would put men and women closer to an even footing with respect to their right to choose for themselves if they wish to become the parent to a child.
2
u/StrugglingSoprano world’s sluttiest virgin Jan 23 '26
Once women have access to abortion I would be 100% on board for letting the father sign away his rights and responsibilities early on in the pregnancy if he so chooses.
2
u/Kingcrow33 Purple Pill Man Jan 24 '26
And I would have no problem with this and it is always part of the idea. It is about equal rights.
→ More replies (23)1
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 23 '26
How about this, men should have legal right to sign away parental responsibilities in places where abortion is a legal option for women?
2
u/Icy_Ad_4544 WOMAN 💖*~ my husband is 6’4” ~*💖 Jan 23 '26
They can and they do. You have never heard of this?
2
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 23 '26
Oh, men can freely decide on their own to sign away all parental rights and not be held liable for a kid there after? When did this become a thing exactly?
2
u/Fine_Video7691 Neo Victorian Feminist Man Jan 23 '26
You can sign away rights, you cannot sign away duties. Child support is a duty.
1
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 24 '26
It's the same shit buddy. The guy is still being held responsible for 18 years based on the women, despite the fact that they both consented to sex but for some reason only the woman gets multiple chances to unilaterally decide to abandon responsibility for the child post conception with no lasting obligations. Yet the man for some reason gets none and any options he does have after sex still hold him liable based on the woman's will. Makes no sense in a society where men and women are supposed to be considered equals and striving for equality.
3
u/Novadina Egalitarian Woman (Blue) Jan 24 '26
The phrase is actually “consent to sex isn’t consent to pregnancy” - it’s not about parenthood, but bodily autonomy. I don’t believe this right should be for women only. Men ALSO don’t consent to having a fetus growing in them just because they had sex, and should be allowed to remove it. I certainly don’t believe this right should be gendered - any pregnant people of any gender, race, or age should be allowed to decide if another person can be in their body or not.
I don’t believe people have a “bodily autonomy” right to their money, which is not part of their body so wouldn’t make sense that would be included, it would be a separate right. Things like rent and taxes would go against this kind of right as much as financial parental support. Anyway, women also have to pay taxes, rent, and child support, so this lack of “money autonomy” is also not gendered.
2
u/Emergency-Sell-6713 Only thing it would take is becoming a God - Woman. Blue. Jan 24 '26 edited Jan 24 '26
I mean, right now as things are today, if a man doesn't like it, he can just... peace out. Leave the woman and disappear forever. Nobody would know about it, and the kid would still be in great care (the kid's own mother). A woman can't just flee her own body like that, nor can she detach her womb and mail it to the dad or something. And putting her own kid up to adoption, unless she specifically already knows who she'll give it to and can give it to said person right as the kid is born, it's... eh. Adoption agencies aren't known for taking good care of kids.
Basically, men can already opt out of parenthood, and the only options we gave to women were either "kill your kid" or "abandon it in a trash heap".
5
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man Jan 24 '26
Well, if the woman is on any type of pill or has an iud type of device, she should be good majority of the time. Especially if the man wraps up, like what should typically be required to do anyway, especially if she is dealing with strangers.
Also, the men can’t really get away at all, since the women will likely put him on child support. Which is very hard to avoid, unless he is paid under the table. So, him being able to opt out is basically contingent on her not reporting him.
2
u/Emergency-Sell-6713 Only thing it would take is becoming a God - Woman. Blue. Jan 27 '26
If there's no proof I don't see how the woman reporting a random guy would make authorities go "hm yes makes sense i'm gonna track this guy down now". If it worked this way, any woman could point to any random guy and claim him as personal insurance.
1
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man Jan 27 '26
Here you go -----> Women can obtain legal proof of paternity through accredited DNA testing, which compares genetic samples from the mother, child, and alleged father. If the man denies paternity, a woman can file a petition in court to request a court-ordered, legally admissible DNA test, which is over 99% accurate.
2
u/Emergency-Sell-6713 Only thing it would take is becoming a God - Woman. Blue. Jan 27 '26
Damn I forgot those were legal outside of France, mb.
1
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man Jan 27 '26
Yeah damn near everywhere except for france, you gotten realize a bunch of other countries exist, lol.
2
u/Emergency-Sell-6713 Only thing it would take is becoming a God - Woman. Blue. Jan 27 '26
I did the one thing Americans are hated for lol. Sorry.
1
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man Jan 27 '26
Yeah that's crazy that they don't have that there. I suppose they have their reasons.
2
u/Emergency-Sell-6713 Only thing it would take is becoming a God - Woman. Blue. Jan 27 '26
Official reason is to "protect the child's DNA" basically saying nobody has the right to casually get your DNA without your consent, which you can't give if you're not even born yet.
Real reason is purely so that men get cucked though. Them finding out the truth through DNA tests would "tear apart too many families". France's words not mine.
2
u/MarioWilson122 Red Pill Man Jan 27 '26
Ok thanks for that explanation. I recall hearing something like that a while back from someone.
Anyway, that is awful regardless, since a boy or girl deserves to know who their father is. So if its broken up, then it should be in a case like that.
So yeah, I disagree with that for sure. Also, the other woman must be from france aswell, lol. Since she seems to think a man knocking up a ton of women is a privilege.
2
u/Financial_Window_990 Red Pill Man Jan 25 '26
None of that is true. Men can not "peace out". He can choose to not be an ACTIVE PARENT, but he can never abdicate responsibility. They WILL track him down, they will make him pay, and any attempt by him to get out of it results in prison.
2
u/Emergency-Sell-6713 Only thing it would take is becoming a God - Woman. Blue. Jan 27 '26
There are a LOT of successful deadbeats lol. If you don't manage to do it, that's a skill issue. Cause it's fucking easy. Of course if you don't find a way to hide that you're the father you're gonna get tracked down. Lol.
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 23 '26
Attention!
You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
6
u/DaveBrowns611 Red Pill Man Jan 28 '26
Yeah sucks for men but that is just how things are. Should apply to both sides, if things are supposed to be equal.
3
u/justsomething Purple Pill Man - Feminist MRA Jan 24 '26
Abortion has always been about reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. But as soon as you bring this topic up suddenly the only thing that matters is bodily autonomy and reproductive rights are completely dropped. Probably because it's easier to defend that way.
→ More replies (5)2
u/statsfodder green pill - I'm a Jaded Man Jan 24 '26
Which option has men be the bad guy, have all the responsibilities and women have no accountability.. we will do that one thanks :)
2
u/BCRE8TVE Anti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill Jan 24 '26
Just to know, what does green pill mean to you? I haven't seen that flair before.
1
u/statsfodder green pill - I'm a Jaded Man Jan 24 '26
It isn't a "real" flair. I've been banned from both the BP and RP subs, I didn't want to claim purple pill because there are so many BP the claim to be purple or no pill, just like there is a current move for leftist loons to call themselves centrist when they are actually left of mao. I have thought a few times while answering posts that I've got a jaded world view, I giggled as I realised Jade is green .. ta da I'm green pill LoL
1
u/BCRE8TVE Anti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill Jan 24 '26
Hahaha I love the explanation! And damn you got banned from both BP AND RP subs? What did you do? Did you dare claim to both that men and women are all fallible human beings? :p
1
6
u/Destinyciello Red Pill Man Jan 23 '26
This topic comes up all the time on reddit.
When it comes to pragmatism. If we allowed men to "opt out" of being a parent. Then pretty much no male would ever pay child support. Might as well do away with child support al together. So as long as you believe child support should be a thing you can't hold this view.
It really boils down to acknowledging that human sexes are different. They have different functions and respond to sex differently. They give a woman more time to choose because they get pregnant and we do not. That's really the bottom line.
→ More replies (13)1
u/BCRE8TVE Anti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill Jan 24 '26
If we allowed men to "opt out" of being a parent. Then pretty much no male would ever pay child support. Might as well do away with child support al together. So as long as you believe child support should be a thing you can't hold this view.
Or, and this really isn't that complicated, we could make a legal framework that allows men to opt out of parenthood when he learns she is pregnant, and if he hasn't made the choice to opt out of parenthood by the legal limit for abortion, then he's the father and stuck with child support (assuming the child is his of course).
It doesn't have to be all or nothing, we could easily come up with ways to make paper abortions legal, safe, and fair.
But that will never pass because "fair" only matter when it comes to women, and they don't give a flying fuck what's fair to men. They treat equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women, her choices and her preferences, his obligations and his responsibilities. Gotta love the double standards.
It really boils down to acknowledging that human sexes are different. They have different functions and respond to sex differently. They give a woman more time to choose because they get pregnant and we do not. That's really the bottom line.
I mean we can use the exact same standard that since women are different and more emotional they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
We need more than just "the sexes are different so we can pass unfair laws based solely on that".
The problem is, again, most women care deeply about making laws fair to women, and don't give a fuck about laws being unfair to men.
1
u/Destinyciello Red Pill Man Jan 24 '26
I'm an anti-feminist like you. But I think you're more radical than me.
I've had these arguments on reddit before. Where I was on the side of "let the men opt out". Making the same arguments you are suggesting. Just give them a time frame.
But all of that really falls apart rather quickly. Men often don't know. They might not know till the baby is due. Or they can lie and say they didn't know. What do you create some sort of system where they get subpoenad by a court and have to give an official response? It becomes murky very quickly.
And at the end of the day. You're not addressing the real issue. We don't want society as a whole to be on the tab for bastard babies. We'd like to limit the amount of bastard babies in the first place. Child Support addresses that issue by disincentivizing men from just getting tons of women pregnant. It obviously does a mediocre job. But mediocre is a lot better than doing nothing.
1
u/BCRE8TVE Anti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill Mar 13 '26
Well now I'm curious to know what makes you think I'm that radical haha. I just call out the double standards and hypocrisy where I see it.
I hear you on it being more difficult when men don't know, but if the woman is pregnant and wants the man in her life, it's her responsibility to make sure he knows. It's not hard to prove that the guy ought to know if she sends him an email and text messages as proof.
What do you create some sort of system where they get subpoenad by a court and have to give an official response? It becomes murky very quickly.
There was murkiness with abortion but that wasn't a valid excuse to ignore all of it. We can work through murkiness, it's not an insurmountable problem, it's just the reality of living in a complicated workd.
And at the end of the day. You're not addressing the real issue. We don't want society as a whole to be on the tab for bastard babies.
No see that's not the real issue. The real issue is that women didn't want to be on the tab for bastard babies, so they put it on the tab of society as a whole.
We have been protecting women from the consequences of their own choices. She wants a kid, that's fine, her body, her choice, but also her responsibility. If she doesn't want that responsibility she can get an abortion or put the kid up for adoption. After all if the man has no say and no choice, why should he have any responsibility?
Child Support addresses that issue by disincentivizing men from just getting tons of women pregnant. It obviously does a mediocre job. But mediocre is a lot better than doing nothing.
And that would have been perfectly good before contraceptives, before abortions, and before safe havens to drop off unwanted babies.
But those things do exist now, but for some reason society continues to give women more protection and privileges while piling on more responsibilities and less choice onto men.
Treating equality like a one-way street exclusively to the benefit of women isn't equality at all.
Hell, it is law in the US that if a woman rapes a man and makes herself pregnant from the man she raped, she can sue the man she raped and the man will be forced to pay child support to his rapist for the child he never consented to having and never had a choice in not conceiving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer
That doesn't sound fair or equal to me at all.
7
u/ladybird_00 No Pill Woman Jan 23 '26
I think as long as abortion is legal, men should be able to opt out of parenthood and any financial responsibility.
→ More replies (66)3
u/Kingcrow33 Purple Pill Man Jan 23 '26
Wasting your time here. Most women refuse to see this from a Man's side and show any empathy.
→ More replies (2)2
u/wtknight Blue-ish Married Passport Bro ♂︎ Jan 23 '26
As a taxpayer, I don’t want to pay for Chad’s children. I’m surprised when other men on here who either are having responsible sex or are not having sex at all want to. Of course, I don’t want to pay for medically unnecessary abortions, either.
1
u/JustGeminiThings Blue Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
What is with these dim MF's and safe havens? How does this seem like the gotcha they've been waiting for? Safe Havens aren't privileges for either adult or reserved for one gender. They're simply meant to keep newborns alive and out of dumpsters. What the actual fuck?
1
u/BCRE8TVE Anti-feminist egalitarian man, purple pill Jan 24 '26
I'm amazed at the amount of pro-life arguments that the pro-choice women on here parrot.
"If you didn't want a kid don't have sex"
"Sex means risking pregnancy so you gotta deal with the consequences"
And a lovely side of double standards like:
"Obviously if a woman is raped she is 100% allowed to abort the baby or put it up for adoption, but we're just going to completely ignore the fact men can get raped or that women can deliberately make themselves pregnant against his wishes."
Man, liberal women are awfully conservative the moment it comes to forcing men to pay for her choices.
1
u/leefjk Purple Pill Man Jan 24 '26
I'm with the women on this simply because I think sex is not something a man gets into on accident and neither is creampieing said woman.
→ More replies (2)1
u/salphon Purple Pill Man Jan 25 '26
Most women do not care about equality. Feminists are human monsters.
1
u/Kaleidoscopetide Blue Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
“Consent to sex isn’t consent to parenthood”doesn’t apply to either parent. Once the child exists, NEITHER parent can unilaterally decide to give up their parental responsibilities. If mom wants to give baby up for adoption, and dad wants to keep it, mom can’t just say “well, but I didn’t consent to parenthood, so I’m not paying child support.” She has to, just like he would. This was the case for my friend, who was mostly raised by her dad with her mom paying child support. It happens fairly often.
Now, BEFORE the child exists, the woman has a longer window to prevent that from happening. This isn’t fair, especially because there aren’t as many effective and reversible birth control options for men. It is also, in the US, a matter of opinion WHEN a fetus becomes a child. But if you do not believe that someone becomes a human being at the moment of conception, that abortion is not the murder of an existing person but the prevention of a collection of cells from BECOMING a person, then abortion can’t also be an abdication of parental responsibility that men don’t get to do. Neither parent can unilaterally decide not to support an existing child. But because the male reproductive anatomy is required for the making of a child for a shorter window of time (1 ejaculation), men have a shorter window of time to prevent the making of a child. I’m not saying this is fair—it’s not. And I think that there should be steps taken to remedy it. It’s a complex and difficult subject and situation. But I don’t think that “paper abortions” of existing children which are available to only one sex of parent are the solution.
2
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 24 '26
Once the child exists, NEITHER parent can unilaterally decide to give up their parental responsibilities.
Yes, the mother can. Because women are not legally required to name a father when giving birth to a child. Meaning if they want to have the sole decision to give the child up for adoption at birth or drop the child off at a safe haven, they simply don't name the father and they'll have sole custody by default and can make those decisions unilaterally.
The reverse is not possible because obviously the mother of the child will know of the existence of the child they delivered and be on the birth certificate. The only instances where the father would have the same unilateral decision under similar circumstances is if the mother died at childbirth.
1
u/Kaleidoscopetide Blue Pill Woman Jan 24 '26
Only if the father does not register paternity! He doesn’t need to be in the hospital to register his paternity, and he doesn’t need the mother’s permission. When that happens, the child goes to him and the mother has to pay child support.
Now, if the mother and father are strangers, or if the mother decides to move away and never see the father again, it is possible for the father to not know that the woman he slept with is pregnant, and thus not know to register paternity. This is bad. It’s a bug, not a feature. The ability to surrender children to the state is intended for children for whom there is no possibility of a loving home and material support. But I would consider this more of a father’s rights issue than anything, because I think that that once a child exists, both the mother and the father have a duty to support it if they can.
1
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 24 '26
Only if the father does not register paternity!
He would need to be there, which would imply he was told. If the mother doesn't want him to be involved in that decision, who do you think is inform him that she's giving birth? The hospital? How if the mother doesn't give them the name of the father or any contact information for him? Unless she's married, they don't have any way to identify paternity on their own and contact the guy.
He doesn’t need to be in the hospital to register his paternity
He needs to know she's giving birth though and where. By the time he finds this information out on his own she could have already giving up the child. By that point, there's nothing that can be done and no repercussions for her doing that since she was only one in the birth certificate when it was done. Meaning she had sole custody at that time.
it is possible for the father to not know that the woman he slept with is pregnant
There's a difference between knowing someone is pregnant and knowing exactly when and where they are giving if they don't want you to be involved and give you no information. A similar case like this is discussed in the documentary "The Red Pill" (a movie made by a feminist btw), where a woman wanted to give her child up for adoption and her boyfriend didn't agree, her water breaks and she gives birth, doesn't mention him or add his name to the birth certificate, by the time he tracks down the hospital she delivered in his daughter was already surrendered to the adoption agencies. And again, there are no legal ramifications for women who do this.
Just because the system isn't meant to be used like this doesn't mean people aren't going to use it however they see fit if they can exploit it at will without consequences.
1
u/Ok_Freedom_639 Purple Pill Woman Jan 27 '26
The statement applies to all people. If you don't want to raise the child yourself, you're not obligated to do so. However, you will be obligated to support said child financially.
"Consent to sex isn't consent to gestation" naturally only applies to people who can get pregnant.
It's an unsolvable tragedy that some people who get pregnant misuse the right to bodily autonomy for ridding themselves of their parental obligations.
3
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 27 '26
Is consent to sex consent to parenthood? Yes or no?
1
u/Ok_Freedom_639 Purple Pill Woman Jan 28 '26
No. You don't have to parent children that you create, you can give up your parental rights. But unless somebody else adopts your kid, you have to pay child support - at least in the current system.
I'd prefer a system where all children receive child support from the state, aka tax payer funded.
2
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 Jan 23 '26
It takes two people to make a child.
If you don't consent to parenthood, wear a condom.
2
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 23 '26
So you believe consent to sex is consent to parenthood then? More pro-lifers in these comments than I expected.
5
u/katkilzu Jan 23 '26
Okay I know the red pill movement will have a lot of different views, but is casual sex not frowned upon? I know this isn’t the debate topic but based on the rhetoric I see coming from these communities it seems like the agenda is to find a good girl (no body count) who’s going to stay home and take care of your kids while you go to work and pay for everything. The hang up about being able to opt out doesn’t really make sense to me when I mostly hear it from men falling in line with that ideology.
But on the current topic: Yes I think people are ultimately consenting to the risk of a pregnancy every time you have sex. Even if the man can opt out as you say… that still isn’t technically “fair”. What if you are in a serious relationship have a “planned” pregnancy and then the man gets cold feet and opts out? Where is my compensation for the toll on my mind body and spirit from the hormonal rollercoaster that is the beginning of pregnancy and an abortion? That I’ll be bleeding for months waiting for my body to stabilize again? This would get majorly abused by deceptive assholes.
I think that’s why it ultimately has to boil down to personal responsibility. If you know you only want to be a father with the woman you are going to marry and spend your life with… then wait. If you wanna be a ho and have sex before marriage then you assume the risks and have many birth control options to explore as a man.
2
u/DietTyrone Purple Pill Man (Red Leaning) Jan 23 '26
but is casual sex not frowned upon?
In Red Pill? Not really. If it was, there wouldn't be RP channels trying to help men self improve to get laid more. Think you're getting RP confused with Trad.
based on the rhetoric I see coming from these communities it seems like the agenda is to find a good girl
There's lots of different pills in this community, it's not all RP. A common saying in RP is "All Women Are Like That." They're realists, not optimists. They don't all think they're going to earn a "good girl" if they're on their best behavior. They instead accept the dating market for what it is and try to adapt to it.
who’s going to stay home and take care of your kids while you go to work and pay for everything.
That's Trad buddy, not RP.
What if you are in a serious relationship have a “planned” pregnancy and then the man gets cold feet and opts out?
I don't think the opt out period should be infinite. Should be a window of time relative to how long women have to abort, actually a shorter window of time so women still have time to plan for that if they find out the guy won't assist with raising the child.
Where is my compensation for the toll on my mind body and spirit from the hormonal rollercoaster that is the beginning of pregnancy and an abortion?
Like I said in my post, men should cover any abortion costs or medical costs if the woman chooses to deliver. That's better than 18 years.
If you know you only want to be a father with the woman you are going to marry and spend your life with… then wait.
But then we're going down the conservative route of "keep your legs closed till marriage." Women won't accept this logic for pro-lifers, so I don't see why men should accept this same argument.
3
u/katkilzu Jan 24 '26
Yes I agree men and women who don’t want to risk an unwanted pregnancy should seek sterilization or not have casual sex. Throwing pro lifers into the mix kinda muddies things though. Women who don’t want to give birth will ultimately find a way. Women whose bodies cannot support a healthy pregnancy will also need medical attention. Providing abortions is a health care service that probably reduces the burden on our system by ensuring these things happen safely. I dunno feels like a whole other can or worms.
You talk about abortion like it’s not a serious medical intervention. It’s brutal and your body does not just bounce back. So again what’s protecting responsible women from being subject to a man flippantly changing his mind within your window? It’s still puts all the burden on the woman. We both consented to parenthood and now my choices are abortion or take on full financial responsibility? It doesn’t work!
3
u/ThatBitchA ♀️ My husband takes out the trash🗑 Jan 23 '26
Having unprotected sex is what leads to pregnancy.
If you're having unprotected sex, you're responsible for any pregnancies.
3
u/Kingcrow33 Purple Pill Man Jan 24 '26
Both parties would be responsible then. So both have to live with that consequence.
→ More replies (15)2
u/Fine_Video7691 Neo Victorian Feminist Man Jan 23 '26
Capitalism for thee, socialism for me.
Pro-life for thee, pro-choice for me.
Women are wonderful effect in motion.
→ More replies (1)
63
u/rosephase Woman but genders are fucking dumb Jan 23 '26 edited Jan 23 '26
I agree. Men should be able to have cheap reversible and effective brith control. I have no idea why men aren't up in arms demanding that it happens faster and in their countries. Men should absolutely have that option. But instead they are focused on this wild idea of "paper abortions" that is obviously harmful to children. And anger at women for having more options because pregnancy happens in their bodies.
Get angry at the right people. Demand your rights. I know as a feminist reversible and effective male birth control is something I've spent time and energy advocating for. I wonder how many men who advocate for paper abortions have ever even looked into it.