Financial abortion

Moderators: Enigma, Sonic#

Locked
humankinda

Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 20:31 2016

Financial abortion

Post by humankinda » Fri Oct 14, 6:52 2016

I was debating someone on child support. They brought up this idea that men should be able to terminate their financial responsibility if its within the window of abortion, so the woman can make the decision if she wants to abort or not with the knowledge that child wont be financially supported by the father.

I didnt know how to respond at the time so I left it at that. Any opinions on this?

My initial thoughts as I writing this: would it be right to create an incentive for the woman to abort a fetus? Though I can see why they think it would be fair, this does limit the woman's bodily autonomy with what is basically financial coercion.

User avatar
Unvoiced_Apollo
member
member
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Sep 9, 9:54 2015

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Unvoiced_Apollo » Fri Oct 14, 7:12 2016

It is financial coercion & misrepresents what child support is about, which is to allow the male progenitotr to absolve himself of all other responsibilities as the father should he so choose while still providing something to help the mother & child.

Not only this, but "financial abortion" tries to equate monetary support with all other aspects that come with making a choice regarding the woman's body.

humankinda

Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 20:31 2016

Re: Financial abortion

Post by humankinda » Fri Oct 14, 7:35 2016

Oh good, glad I was on the right track with that. I had to spend most the time explaining a women's choice to abort a fetus or not is in no way equivalent to a man choosing to financial abort a child.

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Pikachu » Fri Oct 14, 10:42 2016

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:It is financial coercion & misrepresents what child support is about, which is to allow the male progenitotr to absolve himself of all other responsibilities as the father should he so choose while still providing something to help the mother & child.

Not only this, but "financial abortion" tries to equate monetary support with all other aspects that come with making a choice regarding the woman's body.
So men aren't allowed to choose what to do with their body?

What to do with their arms, legs and brain? The things they earn money with? Men must be your wage slaves?

I'm not paying for a woman's choice over her own body. There's nothing stopping her from getting a job with maternity leave.

Get. A . Job.

Too disabled to work? There are benefits for you.

The only reason women are seen as empowered for the choice they make over their own body, yet men are seen as villains for choosing to use their body, namely their legs, to walk away is because women are assumed to be more vulnerable and helpless even when it comes to following through on their own decisions. Men are seen as obligated to sacrifice and wage slave against their will because that's the masculine norm.

And the people who are supposed to be arguing against this patriarchal infantilization of women , the feminists, instead support it.
Last edited by Pikachu on Fri Oct 14, 11:43 2016, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charli!
member
member
Posts: 973
Joined: Wed Aug 6, 9:17 2003
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Charli! » Fri Oct 14, 12:10 2016

Men are allowed to choose what to do with their bodies, they could not have sex in the first place then unwanted pregnancies wouldn't be a problem- but that is trivialising somewhat.

Pregnancy is a major thing, major changes and risks to the woman's body. The choice of whether to abort should be hers and hers alone- it is her body and her life on the line. Abortion isn't risk free either. I don't think men should be able to choose not to be involved in that in any way, they were involved in making the child, so have to take responsibility for their actions later on if necessary. So the man would like an abortion and the woman doesn't- you can't just resolve your responsibility and claim because you didn't get your way then you won't be part of it, actions have consequences.

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5365
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Sonic# » Fri Oct 14, 13:55 2016

A "financial abortion" is unlike a real abortion in two important ways.

First, a real abortion terminates a pregnancy so that after several months no child results.
A financial abortion does not terminate a pregnancy. A child will soon exist in the world. The difference is that the child will lack the support of one parent. In a capitalist system, having financial stability is pretty important for kids. They need that stability to survive and thrive.

Second, a real abortion and real pregnancy affect a woman's body. Like, there's literally an embryo embedded in the uterine lining or (occasionally) the fallopian tubes. The organs of the body grow and adjust to accommodate that. There's blood, tissue, fluid, intermingled vascular systems. My sister has pre-enclampsia right now because of her pregnancy.
A financial abortion or financial obligation is not nearly so visceral. The way it affects the body is indirect. Reappropriating the language of "bodily integrity" to apply to work for money misconstrues that argument. It's a bad analogy. Appealing to financial independence and financial autonomy would be a better argument, and quite independent from how abortion works.

That's why I hate the language surrounding a financial abortion. It's not because I believe some way of utterly divesting oneself of parenthood shouldn't exist. It's because the deliberate rhetorical comparison to abortion misrepresents how abortion functions. Further, such a comparison fails to address a clear downside to financial abortion: we don't have the support systems in place to stop kids slipping through the cracks financially. Child support exists partly because of that. Until we have better social programs in place, child support paid by mothers and fathers should remain to help kids in need.

User avatar
spacefem
member
member
Posts: 7911
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 1:37 2002
Location: Kansas
Contact:

Re: Financial abortion

Post by spacefem » Fri Oct 14, 19:58 2016

Pikachu wrote:There's nothing stopping her from getting a job with maternity leave.

Get. A . Job.
I'll pick on this bit of crap.

In the U.S. companies aren't required to pay for maternity leave at all. Many don't. The ones that do usually require that you've been working there long enough to be eligible for FMLA (a full year).

So if you really think it's easy for women get a cushy paid vacation while recovering from childbirth, you are living on another planet.

If you just got a new job, they can fire you when you go to have your baby. If you're working for a small company, they can also fire you, they don't have to comply with FMLA. If you work for yourself, rent a hair cutting booth or whatever, you're screwed. You cannot simply go find a job that will pay maternity leave. There is nothing for you.

Welcome to motherhood!
bork can eat steak with a spoon.

humankinda

Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 20:31 2016

Re: Financial abortion

Post by humankinda » Fri Oct 14, 22:04 2016

Sonic# wrote:A "financial abortion" is unlike a real abortion in two important ways...
Why is body autonomy held in higher regard to financial autonomy( if that is what you believe)? In the case of a child that already exists, I can understand why child support is necessary. In the case where its a fetus that could be aborted, why couldn't the man opt out of child support and the women can make a decision if she wants to abort or keep the potential child. I see how this puts the woman in a tough position where she either has to abort the fetus against her will or have the child without financial support from the man. However is it favoritism to value one form of autonomy over the other if they are indeed equal? If financial autonomy isnt equal, why is that the case?

User avatar
Unvoiced_Apollo
member
member
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Sep 9, 9:54 2015

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Unvoiced_Apollo » Sat Oct 15, 3:55 2016

humankinda wrote:
Sonic# wrote:A "financial abortion" is unlike a real abortion in two important ways...
Why is body autonomy held in higher regard to financial autonomy( if that is what you believe)? In the case of a child that already exists, I can understand why child support is necessary. In the case where its a fetus that could be aborted, why couldn't the man opt out of child support and the women can make a decision if she wants to abort or keep the potential child. I see how this puts the woman in a tough position where she either has to abort the fetus against her will or have the child without financial support from the man. However is it favoritism to value one form of autonomy over the other if they are indeed equal? If financial autonomy isnt equal, why is that the case?
Here is how I see it. A man wants to opt out of having anything to do with the kid should the mother decide to carry the pregnancy to term. It has traditionally been the male progenitor to provide financial support & that today the mother tends to be the primary caregiver even when both parents are working. Therefore, the male progenitor needs to pay his half of the financial support if he wants to absove himself of all other parental responsibilities as now the mother must not only cover her half of financial responsibilities, she must cover all motherly responsibilities as well as all other fatherly ones as well.

Abortion and emergency contraception however free both progenitors from the responsibilities it would take to carry & raise a child. Because health risks only affect the mother in terms of biology, the burden of decision is on her alone.

DolandStump

Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 11:53 2016

Re: Financial abortion

Post by DolandStump » Sat Oct 15, 14:05 2016

TL;DR But I believe it should be an option. Men don't have the power to choose wether the fetus stays or goes, and women do, so men should have the choice to be able to walk away without massive financial repercussions. It'd be an evening of power, make things more equal.

User avatar
Nech
member
member
Posts: 517
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 13:50 2015
Location: Canada

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Nech » Sat Oct 15, 18:29 2016

DolandStump wrote:TL;DR But I believe it should be an option. Men don't have the power to choose wether the fetus stays or goes, and women do, so men should have the choice to be able to walk away without massive financial repercussions. It'd be an evening of power, make things more equal.
That's already been addressed Sonic pretty nicely on how it wouldn't really be an evening of power, should give it a quick read. :)
Where there's smoke, there's fire. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So just shut up, and bring some water.

User avatar
Unvoiced_Apollo
member
member
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Sep 9, 9:54 2015

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Unvoiced_Apollo » Sun Oct 16, 3:23 2016

DolandStump wrote:TL;DR But I believe it should be an option. Men don't have the power to choose wether the fetus stays or goes, and women do, so men should have the choice to be able to walk away without massive financial repercussions. It'd be an evening of power, make things more equal.
As was already said, Sonic does a nice job, but I think I can summarize it as such as to why it's not even.

Financial autonomy (man's decision over finances cannot end pregnancy):

Keeps baby -
Man, who contributed 50% of DNA and contributes 0% to carrying, has no responsibility to live up to as a father.
Woman, who contributed 50% of the DNA and contributes 100% to carrying, bears 100% of all responsibilities of BOTH parents, needing to play both father & mother.

Aborts:
Ends pregnancy, thus ending any responsibility for either parent


Body autonomy (woman's decision over body can end pregnancy)

Keeps baby:
Man, who contributed 50% of DNA and contributes 0% to carrying, pays his half of financial support to absolve himself of all other responsibilities as a father.
Woman, who contributed 50% of the DNA and contributes 100% to carrying, pays her half of financial support but also bears 100% of all OTHER responsibilities of BOTH parents, needing to play both father & mother.

Aborts:
Ends pregnancy, thus ending any responsibility for either parent

Pikachu
member
member
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 9:22 2016

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Pikachu » Sun Oct 16, 7:12 2016

Maybe you need reminding. Men are not your wage slaves. Men are human beings with autonomy deserving of respect that do not exist to work to support YOUR decisions against their will.
A "financial abortion" is unlike a real abortion in two important ways.

First, a real abortion terminates a pregnancy so that after several months no child results.
A financial abortion does not terminate a pregnancy. A child will soon exist in the world. The difference is that the child will lack the support of one parent. In a capitalist system, having financial stability is pretty important for kids. They need that stability to survive and thrive.
A child will exist in the world down solely to the woman's decison. What you are arguing is that so called independent women are not strong enough to take responsibility for their own decisions. And do in fact need a man his money.

The fact that women can kick fathers to the curb and still get at his earnings is the cause of this pernicious attitude that fathers are optional.

Let's get something straight. You aren't starving with a child in a developed country. The fact is you feel ENTITLED to live in the same luxury you're "accustomed to" as when the man was around. At the expense of his autonomy and free will under threat of jail.
Second, a real abortion and real pregnancy affect a woman's body. Like, there's literally an embryo embedded in the uterine lining or (occasionally) the fallopian tubes. The organs of the body grow and adjust to accommodate that. There's blood, tissue, fluid, intermingled vascular systems. My sister has pre-enclampsia right now because of her pregnancy.
A financial abortion or financial obligation is not nearly so visceral. The way it affects the body is indirect. Reappropriating the language of "bodily integrity" to apply to work for money misconstrues that argument. It's a bad analogy. Appealing to financial independence and financial autonomy would be a better argument, and quite independent from how abortion works.
Oh really. Do you even know how this works? Well allow me to explain. Men have been sent to jail over this over being UNABLE to pay the PROJECTED amount based on the PROJECTED earnings the court has decided he should be capable of earning. And if they can't pay from prison? More prison.

Over a decision that wasn't theirs in any way. What of the suicides?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-son.html

http://australianmensrights.com/Men_Sui ... V2000.aspx

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/ ... pport.html

Not visceral? Where do you get off? I didn't realize money appears "indirectly". Here I thought you had to go into debt to pay in time and labour your ass off to cover it before the next child support bill comes in. Y'know, with his BODY.
That's why I hate the language surrounding a financial abortion. It's not because I believe some way of utterly divesting oneself of parenthood shouldn't exist.
You realize women can give their child away to the authorities no questions asked? One sex can utterly divest themself of parenthood. Equality? Not even once.
It's because the deliberate rhetorical comparison to abortion misrepresents how abortion functions. Further, such a comparison fails to address a clear downside to financial abortion: we don't have the support systems in place to stop kids slipping through the cracks financially. Child support exists partly because of that. Until we have better social programs in place, child support paid by mothers and fathers should remain to help kids in need.
Firstly, it's almost never paid by mothers, so stop trying to appropriate the issue for women. This is a men's rights issue. Again in a developed country you are not starving. If you are, you're not claiming what you're entitled to. What you're complaining about is having to live within reduced means. Society bends over backwards to keep women from facing responsibility and hard decisions because it inherently believes in the weakness of women.

-------------------------
Financial autonomy (man's decision over finances cannot end pregnancy):

Keeps baby -
Man, who contributed 50% of DNA and contributes 0% to carrying, has no responsibility to live up to as a father.
Woman, who contributed 50% of the DNA and contributes 100% to carrying, bears 100% of all responsibilities of BOTH parents, needing to play both father & mother.

Aborts:
Ends pregnancy, thus ending any responsibility for either parent


Body autonomy (woman's decision over body can end pregnancy)

Keeps baby:
Man, who contributed 50% of DNA and contributes 0% to carrying, pays his half of financial support to absolve himself of all other responsibilities as a father.
Woman, who contributed 50% of the DNA and contributes 100% to carrying, pays her half of financial support but also bears 100% of all OTHER responsibilities of BOTH parents, needing to play both father & mother.
A man has to pay against his will under threat of jail, with hardened criminals in there, over a decision that wasn't his, in order to avoid being forced to do more things against his will?

And you call this fair!

User avatar
Sonic#
member
member
Posts: 5365
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009
Location: Georgia, US

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Sonic# » Sun Oct 16, 9:57 2016

Maybe you need reminding. Men are not your wage slaves. Men are human beings with autonomy deserving of respect that do not exist to work to support YOUR decisions against their will.
Your money only incidentally goes to the other parent. It goes to the child you helped create. If paying for your child makes you a "wage slave" to that child, I'm okay with that. And the fact that you work while physically encompassing a body does not entitle you to a simulated abortion.

I distinguish bodily autonomy as I did because not all practices have equivalents. Only the person who physically has an embryo embedded in them can determine whether to carry the embryo to birth or abort. Any attempt at granting equivalence regarding bodily autonomy violates the autonomy of the carrier, so the result is not actually equivalent. Thus we either recognize a woman's right to abort or we recognize a man's right to restrict her right to abort. I prefer the former.

Pragmatically speaking, if men want to have some say regarding bodily autonomy, they can control everything they do regarding their own body. They can have vasectomies, insist on wearing condoms, practice outercourse with a consenting partner, or use a number of other methods to prevent an embryo forming outside of their bodies. Because once that sperm is outside of their body and in another person it becomes part of that person's body, and that person's choice.

Once a child is born, the child is not a decision. It is a human life, and we as a society are morally obligated to make sure that life is reasonably provided for. The financial obligation between parents is equivalent in our society: both parents are expected to provide it. Such an obligation for support does not erode if the relationship between the parents cools, because the child does not disappear. The child's still there to be provided for. They still have to navigate the more complex relationships that result. They need food, clothes, supplies for school, a roof over their head, basic healthcare.

If you argue that men should be able to set this aside, then you're arguing for a power that women don't currently have. You refer to the fact that women can, guilt-free, give children to the state. Two things: those rights vary between the states, and most often don't pertain to children older than a few days old; such abandonment in most cases disadvantages the child, though it might be necessary for parents in some situations. The same thing pertains to our existing welfare system, which provides some support (thanks TANF) but not enough. Kids on TANF still struggle to be clothed and homed in many cases, the experience of which leaves them more likely to have a poor quality of life for years and decades. So you say the support is enough; I say it isn't.

So comparing financial "abortion" to real abortion is misleading. A man can't pretend a child doesn't exist for the purposes of not supporting that child. There's no getting around the actual child being there and needing support. Unless we build a robust welfare system where kids can't fall between the cracks, it's immoral to give men any special powers regarding financial divestment. You get the same powers any other parent has after their child is born.

User avatar
Unvoiced_Apollo
member
member
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Sep 9, 9:54 2015

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Unvoiced_Apollo » Sun Oct 16, 15:20 2016

Pikachu wrote:Maybe you need reminding. Men are not your wage slaves. Men are human beings with autonomy deserving of respect that do not exist to work to support YOUR decisions against their will.
A "financial abortion" is unlike a real abortion in two important ways.

First, a real abortion terminates a pregnancy so that after several months no child results.
A financial abortion does not terminate a pregnancy. A child will soon exist in the world. The difference is that the child will lack the support of one parent. In a capitalist system, having financial stability is pretty important for kids. They need that stability to survive and thrive.
A child will exist in the world down solely to the woman's decison. What you are arguing is that so called independent women are not strong enough to take responsibility for their own decisions. And do in fact need a man his money.

The fact that women can kick fathers to the curb and still get at his earnings is the cause of this pernicious attitude that fathers are optional.

Let's get something straight. You aren't starving with a child in a developed country. The fact is you feel ENTITLED to live in the same luxury you're "accustomed to" as when the man was around. At the expense of his autonomy and free will under threat of jail.
Second, a real abortion and real pregnancy affect a woman's body. Like, there's literally an embryo embedded in the uterine lining or (occasionally) the fallopian tubes. The organs of the body grow and adjust to accommodate that. There's blood, tissue, fluid, intermingled vascular systems. My sister has pre-enclampsia right now because of her pregnancy.
A financial abortion or financial obligation is not nearly so visceral. The way it affects the body is indirect. Reappropriating the language of "bodily integrity" to apply to work for money misconstrues that argument. It's a bad analogy. Appealing to financial independence and financial autonomy would be a better argument, and quite independent from how abortion works.
Oh really. Do you even know how this works? Well allow me to explain. Men have been sent to jail over this over being UNABLE to pay the PROJECTED amount based on the PROJECTED earnings the court has decided he should be capable of earning. And if they can't pay from prison? More prison.

Over a decision that wasn't theirs in any way. What of the suicides?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... t-son.html

http://australianmensrights.com/Men_Sui ... V2000.aspx

http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/ ... pport.html

Not visceral? Where do you get off? I didn't realize money appears "indirectly". Here I thought you had to go into debt to pay in time and labour your ass off to cover it before the next child support bill comes in. Y'know, with his BODY.
That's why I hate the language surrounding a financial abortion. It's not because I believe some way of utterly divesting oneself of parenthood shouldn't exist.
You realize women can give their child away to the authorities no questions asked? One sex can utterly divest themself of parenthood. Equality? Not even once.
It's because the deliberate rhetorical comparison to abortion misrepresents how abortion functions. Further, such a comparison fails to address a clear downside to financial abortion: we don't have the support systems in place to stop kids slipping through the cracks financially. Child support exists partly because of that. Until we have better social programs in place, child support paid by mothers and fathers should remain to help kids in need.
Firstly, it's almost never paid by mothers, so stop trying to appropriate the issue for women. This is a men's rights issue. Again in a developed country you are not starving. If you are, you're not claiming what you're entitled to. What you're complaining about is having to live within reduced means. Society bends over backwards to keep women from facing responsibility and hard decisions because it inherently believes in the weakness of women.

-------------------------
Financial autonomy (man's decision over finances cannot end pregnancy):

Keeps baby -
Man, who contributed 50% of DNA and contributes 0% to carrying, has no responsibility to live up to as a father.
Woman, who contributed 50% of the DNA and contributes 100% to carrying, bears 100% of all responsibilities of BOTH parents, needing to play both father & mother.

Aborts:
Ends pregnancy, thus ending any responsibility for either parent


Body autonomy (woman's decision over body can end pregnancy)

Keeps baby:
Man, who contributed 50% of DNA and contributes 0% to carrying, pays his half of financial support to absolve himself of all other responsibilities as a father.
Woman, who contributed 50% of the DNA and contributes 100% to carrying, pays her half of financial support but also bears 100% of all OTHER responsibilities of BOTH parents, needing to play both father & mother.
A man has to pay against his will under threat of jail, with hardened criminals in there, over a decision that wasn't his, in order to avoid being forced to do more things against his will?

And you call this fair!
Both the man & a woman have to pay for a decision that two people shared that resulted in conception. The woman pays for much more if she decides or is forced to keep it & the male progenitor steps out on her. It sounds fair to me.

User avatar
Aum
member
member
Posts: 3008
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Aum » Mon Oct 17, 13:48 2016

It's not about men or women, but about children. Women naturally have a disproportionate amount of control over reproduction because of where children develop. That's nobody's fault, it's just nature. What's paramount is that every child born has some sort of support framework in place. Despite the propaganda, the government is not the best provider, nor are foster homes or orphanages.

We should not conflate abortion with child support. They are two different things. One is medical, one is financial.

Women have control over pregnancies because of medical reasons, according to the Supreme Court, and it's between her and her doctor. It concerns her bodily welfare. A man is not at risk from a pregnancy.

Women have medical and financial concerns regarding pregnancy, whereas men only have financial, and that financial tie is usually enforced by courts. In the natural world men could abandon their children, but as most countries aim to have functional societies and give children the best chance possible, child support laws exist for a reason. Before child support laws, traditional values took their place. Social norms were such that having children out of wedlock was frowned upon, and sex outside of marriage as well. Now we have legal institutions in place to allow people sexual freedoms while still protecting children from abandonment. I'd say it's pretty piecemeal.

Because men have less control over pregnancy than women, then there is an even greater onus on them to choose sexual partners more carefully and ensure birth control measures are in place.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.

User avatar
Rainbow Dolphins
member
member
Posts: 9367
Joined: Mon Nov 4, 1:48 2002
Location: In your closet. Armed.

Re: Financial abortion

Post by Rainbow Dolphins » Sat Oct 22, 2:47 2016

So, I have decided I don't want to pay my car insurance bill. Why should I have to? It's my money, I worked for it, I should decide where it goes. Does my insurance company think they can just TAKE my money against my will? I know it's illegal to drive a car without insurance, but I just don't think it's fair that I should have to pay. It's true that when I bought the car I knew I would have to pay to have it insured, but now I don't think it's worth it.

Believe it or not, the shaky analogy I just made makes a lot more sense than equating paying child support to carrying a child to term and then raising it.
"Everything's gonna be OK soon, maybe tomorrow- maybe the next day." -the Mountain Goats
:chainsaw:!

filmmakingally

Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 0:40 2016

Re: Financial abortion

Post by filmmakingally » Sat Oct 22, 22:03 2016

Whoah! We have a Men's Right's Activist on this forum?! Pikachu, I'm ashamed to admit that I agree with a small amount of what you're saying. Why would I be ashamed to admit that? Because when you talk about things like "wage slavery" you out yourself as one of the most privileged people on Earth who has no clue what it's like for people who look anything different from you. "Wage slavery" is not a thing, and when you say things like that, you cheapen how horrible actual slavery is.

Which, by the way, were you are of the fact that actual slavery still exists in America? It's even worse overseas. Get the fuck out of here with this "wage slavery" bullshit!

What are you doing on this forum? I think you might be a "Menimist".

Locked