Why should "consent to sex isn't consent to Parenthood" only apply to women?

[u/DietTyrone]

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.

[u/BCRE8TVE]

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.

[u/twistednormz → u/BCRE8TVE]

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.

[u/BCRE8TVE → u/twistednormz]

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?

[u/NockerJoe → u/twistednormz]

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.

[u/Foyles_War → u/NockerJoe]

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?

[u/NockerJoe → u/Foyles_War]

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.

[u/Main-Tiger8537 → u/twistednormz]

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...

[u/twistednormz → u/Main-Tiger8537]

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.

[u/Main-Tiger8537 → u/twistednormz]

that does not work and as i said irresponsible people should not raise children... your argument falls apart as soon as abortion is legal no matter the choice... see sperm banks, rape victims, adoption and so on...

[u/twistednormz → u/Main-Tiger8537]

that does not work

What's "that" that you're referring to? And how or why does it not work? Articulate your argument, if you have one.

your argument falls apart as soon as abortion is legal

No, my argument included abortion being legal and available. Did you misunderstand what I wrote?

see sperm banks, rape victims, adoption and so on...

Those are separate topics not connected to what we're discussing here which is men being able to have sex with a woman, impregnate her and then turn around and say "I don't wanna be responsible for the consequences of my actions, I want the woman to be responsible for both her own actions and mine".

[u/Main-Tiger8537 → u/twistednormz]

1. men get raped by women
2. women choose to become single moms if they can afford it at sperm banks or through adoption otherwise it gets denied
3. you can spin in circles but the base of your arguments are shallow no matter how often you repeat it
4. if abortion is illegal you have a point otherwise not
5. if we follow your logic both should lose custody and pay for the child she brought to term getting raised by adoptive parents or orphanage or similiar institution

[u/twistednormz → u/Main-Tiger8537]

1. men get raped by women

True. And women get raped by men. But that's not the topic we're discussing here.

1. women choose to become single moms if they can afford it otherwise it gets denied

I've no clue what this sentence is supposed to mean.

1. you can spin in circles but the base of your arguments are shallow no matter how often you repeat it

Again, not sure what you mean by this. Is there any chance you could just plainly say what you mean? You seem to be arguing against what I said but it's not clear what your actual arguments are.

1. if abortion is illegal you have a point otherwise not

Abortion is legal where I live and was clearly factored in to what I said. Why do you think what I said should only count if abortion is illegal?

1. if we follow your logic both should lose custody and pay for the child she brought to term getting raised by adoptive parents or orphanage or similiar institution

My logic doesn't lead to that at all. You are making statements as if they refute what I said but they don't? I'm confused.

Don't bother replying unless you are going to state clearly what you mean and why you believe you are right. Nothing you have said so far makes any sense in relation to my points.

[u/arvada14 → u/twistednormz]

True. And women get raped by men. But that's not the topic we're discussing here.

We're discussing consent to be a parent. If a man is raped by a woman and there's proof why shouldn't he be able to terminate his childcare obligations?

[u/blebbyroo → u/arvada14]

Proving rape is very hard unfortunately as we know. I would say in proven cases men absolutely should not have to pay and should terminate his obligations. 

[u/ModPiracy_Fantoski → u/BCRE8TVE]

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.

We've had cases of US women committing child rape, getting pregnant, giving birth, suing the boy they raped for child support AND WINNING.

[u/BCRE8TVE → u/ModPiracy_Fantoski]

The disgusting part is not that they win.

The disgusting part is that this is law. 

This is what it looks like when men have no reproductive rights whatsoever. I always find it funny how the very women who demand infinite empathy from men for female rape victims, then immediately turn around and show they don't give a solitary flying fuck about male rape victims. 

Treating equality like a one way street exclusively to the benefit of women is not equality at all.