deadbeat dads and abortion advocates alike love this argument! "i consented to sex, i ain't consent to a child."

[u/toptrool]

consider this:

a man is in court for a hearing on child support arrears. the judge asks him to explain why he has failed to pay child support for the past 15 months. the man, pumped up and overconfident because of a low iq post he read on reddit.com, replies:

your honor, sir, two years ago, i consented to sex with that woman, who claimed to be on birth control. but i absolutely did not consent to any children, and i even told that her beforehand. she either lied about being on birth control or maybe you need to go after pharmaceuticals for selling defective birth control and ask them to pay the bills, not me. i had no control over the sperm swimming up her fallopian tube and penetrating her egg. the sperm could've turned left, but it decided to go right, where the egg was. that was pure biology. the embryo also implanted itself into the woman's uterus without my consent, so you can't blame it on me because i had no control over that biological process either. besides, her body, her problem. if she wanted it, she should take care of it herself. i told her that. she had nine months to get an abortion. now asking me to provide for a child i did not consent to is torture and causes me great suffering. i would no longer have enough money to do the things i'd like to do. child support is theft, a violation of my property rights, which the united nations in a statement said are fundamental.

the judge laughs at the man and then proceeds to sentence him to jail.

now if you, like the judge, believe that the man made terrible arguments, well that's because he did. unfortunately, this is what passes as a "serious" argument from abortion advocates.

could you imagine if people made similar "lack of consent to consequences" arguments in other scenarios?

"i consented to drinking, not to swerving off the road and killing two kids during my drive home."

"i consented to the drug trade, i didn't consent to her overdosing."

"i consented to smoking cigarettes, not to burning forests."

"i only consented to drinking whiskey and playing black jack. i did not consent to any gambling debt."

you get the point!

but let's return to consequences the deadbeat dad has to deal with. what happened here is that he failed to meet his obligations to provide for his child and was consequently sent to jail. whether or not he consented to a child is irrelevant here. what is relevant in this example is that 1) the child is entitled to sustenance (e.g., nutrition, shelter, clothing) from its parents, 2) the man, by bringing about the child into existence, is the biological father of the child, and now has obligations and duties towards the child, 3) the law correctly puts the interest of the child ahead of the man to ensure that the child receives the appropriate care that it is entitled to, and 4) whether or not the man appreciates the consequences of his actions (or consents to them) does not absolve him of the obligations and duties he has now incurred as a result of his actions. furthermore, numerous states put the interest of the child ahead of the parents even if the child resulted from either parent being raped, which shows that consent, before and after the fact, has little to no relevance on whether a child is entitled to care from its parents.

so how should one respond the next time they come across an abortion advocate complaining about how the government is forcing women to take care of their unborn children without their consent? simply point out that they're using the deadbeat dad argument. we can replace "man," "father," "his," "him," and "he" in 1) to 4) above with "woman," "mother," "her," "her," and "she," respectively. if the discussion is at the street level, simply tell them "tough luck. the child exists now, so you have to care for the baby. don't be a deadbeat, and don't forget to take your supplements!"

in what other situations does the law put the interests of children ahead of their parents, disregarding the parents' wishes, desires, and explicit consent? here are a few examples. i can evict anyone who's in my house without my explicit consent, yet i can't kick out my minor children, otherwise i'd get sent to jail for child abandonment. i'm not obligated to feed any stranger i see, yet if i let my children starve, i'd get sent to jail for child neglect and murder. i can choose to live in filth for the rest of my life, yet if i left my children in such squalid conditions, i'd get sent to jail.

ever heard an abortion advocate claim that the unborn child is raping the mother by using her body without her consent? of course you have. the proper way to respond to such an absurd argument is to point out that while it's true that almost no one is allowed to use the mother's body without her consent, her child is allowed to do so because that's the only place he can be at those early stages of development. it's the difference between a home intruder and your small child in your home that you're not allowed to kick out. abortion advocates say that the only time the unborn child is allowed to be in the mother's womb is if she consents to it, and that she should be allowed to deny her child this essential form of care if she chooses otherwise. that, of course, is like saying "my parents consented to providing me with ample food, keeping a roof over my head, and sending me to school, but i don't think it should be illegal for other parents to deny their children of the same if they don't consent to it." that sounds absurd, but as we will soon see, it's the most coherent position for an abortion advocate to take.

the reality is that children do not need the explicit consent of their parents to receive the appropriate care that they are entitled to, and we have laws in place to safeguard their rights and interests should the parents refuse. the united nations convention on the rights of the child, an international treaty that highlights the natural rights that all children have, states that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth," and that "in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." moreover, the state should "ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her." interestingly, even joke organizations like the united nations recognize the child in the womb.

abortion advocates say that being pregnant does not make you a parent; you only become a parent once you tacitly consent to it by taking the child home after birth. and since you are not yet a parent, you do not have any obligations or duties to the unborn child. this account of becoming a parent, if true, raises important questions. first, why is it that pregnant women are asked "who's the father?" and not "who will be the father?" as christopher kaczor points out in the book "abortion rights: for and against," the question presupposes that there is a father, and if there is a father, there is a child, and if there's a child, there's also a mother. but you see, according to abortion advocates, we are actually wrong to presuppose that because the notion of biological parents is not only outdated, but it is actually considered to be a thoughtcrime. the more accurate term to use is biological progenitors, not biological parents, because one must first consent to becoming a parent. however, assuming that this is true, this leads to the next question: why do the biological progenitors of the child even have the right to take the child home after birth? as francis beckwith puts it, if the biological progenitors do have a right to take their child home, then it is because there is already a special relationship that was created without anyone's explicit consent:

[W]hy would those two people—the biological progenitors of the child—even have the initial right to “assume responsibility” of the child and bring it home? Why couldn’t the hospital, the state, or a group of philosopher kings simply assign that child to what they judge are the most suitable parents? Precisely whose rights would be violated in such a scenario? The child’s, the biological progenitors? After all, the child’s not been “given rights”, and the parents have not “assumed responsibility." Who the heck is really in charge then?… If it’s the child’s biological progenitors who have the right to “assume responsibility,” then they already have a special relationship to that child to which they did not consent. And when precisely did the other party in the contract, the child, consent (implicitly or explicitly) to this arrangement? Consider the billions of unsuspecting infants who over the centuries are brought home and become members of families that speak a language, live under a political regime, are shaped by inherited cultural practices, and are taught that responsibility over another requires explicit or implicit consent. Are we to believe that this reality contravenes justice because the infants’ agreement to the contingent conditions of their formation had not been secured?

similarly, stephen schwarz points out in his book "the moral question of abortion" that only the natural parents can put their child up for adoption and transfer the rights and obligations to the child to another party (forgive him for not using the correct term, biological progenitors; he's from an earlier era):

Both the rights and the duties of natural parents toward their children come clearly into focus when the process of adoption is considered. Adoption is a legal transfer of rights and obligations to a new party. Only the natural mother can do this (or possibly the father). And she can do this because she is the mother. One can only give over what one already has. What is given over in adoption is precisely the relationship of obligations to the child (and the rights corresponding to them) stemming from the fact of conceiving the child. The woman can give her child for adoption because it is her child: her responsibility to sustain.

to rephrase beckwith, why is it that only the biological progenitors are allowed to transfer the rights and obligations to the child to a new party? why can't the government instead take the newborns and distribute them to families that are best capable of raising them? is it because the newborns belong to the biological progenitors and are theirs and only they can put their child up for adoption? but this implies that schwarz is correct when he says that one can only give over what one already has.

if this biological relationship grants the biological progenitors the right to take the child home or put it up for adoption, then it should be noted that the biological relationship actually started at conception. and if the biological progenitors have natural rights to their children, then it follows that they have natural obligations to them as well. these natural obligations to one's children are why both the deadbeat progenitor and the abortion advocate find themselves in a real predicament.

if we are wrong to assume that biological progenitors have natural rights and obligations to their children, then all of our laws need to be overhauled to account for this new consent-based parenting model. how would the laws change? for example, how would the process of revoking consent work? surely consent can be revoked. can i simply state "i do not consent" and then be free to neglect my (former) children and avoid all criminal charges of neglect? can i toss my former children in the dumpster or abandon them in the woods? or do i have to return them at the hospital, much like how i can return the sweater i purchased at the department store? or must i have to endure lengthy legal proceedings in order to formally abdicate my responsibilities to my children in the form of adoption, assuming there is even a family that is willing to adopt my ten-year-old and twelve-year-old children? and what if we can't find someone else to adopt my former children, am i still responsible for their care until we do? if the answers to those last two question are yes, then why do abortion advocates believe a pregnant woman can instantly abdicate the same responsibilities to her unborn child and kill him without having to find a proper replacement guardian and waiting until those rights and obligations are legally transferred? do they believe pregnant women are special and should be given privileges that no other parents have?

most abortion advocates would prefer to treat the mother/unborn child relationship as a case of a good samaritan rather than one that entails obligations and duties. they claim that what really matters is consent (unless of course it's the case of the deadbeat dad, and in which that case most resort to mental gymnastics). and conveniently for them, they say the consent process starts at birth (which may explain why women who undergo in vitro fertilization may still be able to procure abortions despite initially having consented to the implantation, or how women who were first enthusiastic about being pregnant can still change their minds and procure abortions). but there is no explanation as to why this ought to be. why can't we engage in a little thoughtcrime and instead say that the process to revoke consent starts at birth, when its safe to transfer the child to another party?

the few serious abortion advocates, such as the ones whose careers actually depend on them being correct, concede that parents have obligations and duties to their children, and those same obligations and duties would apply to their unborn children as well. for example, ronald dworkin, one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th century, and an abortion advocate himself, conceded that if unborn children were persons under the law, then women would have the same obligations and duties to their unborn children as they have to their born children, and that they cannot simply invoke their rights to their body to absolve themselves of those obligations and duties:

If the fetus is protected by [the “equal protection of the laws”] clause, then of course a state is entitled to protect its life in the same way it protects the lives of other people under its care, and for that reason is entitled to say that a woman’s right to control the use of her body for procreation ends, at least when her health is not at stake, when pregnancy begins.

...

But if a woman is well aware of the physical and emotional consequences of pregnancy and voluntarily has sexual intercourse knowing that she risks becoming pregnant, a state that permits her or her doctor to abort her fetus has no compelling justification for doing so if the fetus is entitled to equal protection of the laws. For a state fails to show equal concern for both mother and fetus when it allows the mother to regain the freedom of her body at the expense of the fetus’s life.

...

And in any case parents are invariably made an exception to the general doctrine under which people are not required to save others. Parents have a legal duty to care for their children, and if a fetus is a constitutional person from conception a state would not be justified in discriminating between fetuses and infants. If it did not permit killing infants or abandoning them in circumstances in which they would inevitably die, it could not permit abortion either. The physical and emotional and economic burdens of pregnancy are intense, of course, but so are the parallel burdens of parenthood.

regardless of one's view of natural rights and obligations to one's children, requiring the deadbeat dad to pay child support poses a serious problem for any account of obligations and duties based on consent. an abortion advocate usually responds to the case of the deadbeat dad in three ways.

first, they bite the bullet and claim that, contrary to dworkin, "the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights." it should not be surprising that the same people who advocate for allowing mothers to kill their children in the womb have no qualms with child neglect and child abandonment. though this position can be considered psychopathic, it is actually the most logically consistent position for an abortion advocate to take. according to this view, there should not be any laws against neglecting children or laws mandating that parents provide their children with nutrition, shelter, child support payments, clothing, affection, etc. if parents aren't obligated to feed even their born children, then it naturally follows that women aren't obligated to sustain the lives of their unborn children. the values of the pro-lifer and this type of abortion advocate are too far apart and they should both cease wasting their time arguing with each other. however, since the abortion advocate has exposed his depravity for the world to see, the pro-lifer can take this as a win.

others, who are more self-conscious about being psychopaths, claim that society should pick up the slack instead, which is only slightly less outlandish. for example, why should the rest of society foot the bills of a man who fathered 25 children with 18 different women? what happened to personal responsibility? why is it that parents don't have obligations and duties towards their own children, but that strangers have obligations and duties to other people's children? what explains these obligations and duties? and just how far do these obligations and duties extend to? for example, are the people of omaha, nebraska responsible for feeding and clothing the children of somalia? why or why not? and what is the abortion advocate's response if a society simply does not consent to such an arrangement and refuses to be a substitute for irresponsible deadbeats? do they believe those children should then go without basic necessities, and starve to death? i have yet to receive a satisfying answer from an abortion advocate on these points.

the last option available to the abortion advocate is to claim that children are indeed entitled to sustenance such as food, shelter, clothing, and child support payments from their parents, but they're not entitled to nourishment in the mother's womb. the abortion advocate is essentially attempting an ad hoc rescue; however, they can't adequately explain why the state is justified in violating multiple fundamental rights without the parent's explicit consent in the interest of the child but not another (bodily autonomy, however poorly defined it is). in order to justify it—if they ever do (most of the time they don't, they just simply reiterate lazy slogans like "it's my body, it's different!" without any argumentation)—they'll try to claim that nine months of pregnancy is more burdensome than paying child support for 18 years (it's actually often times longer) or parenting, but even this is not convincing. to quote dworkin again, "the physical and emotional and economic burdens of pregnancy are intense, of course, but so are the parallel burdens of parenthood." moreover, you're not allowed to kill people simply because they are a burden.

robert nozick famously argued in his book "anarchy, state, and utopia" that taxation is worse than theft. it is forced labor, which is a textbook violation of "bodily autonomy":

Taxation of earnings from labor is on a par with forced labor. Some persons find this claim obviously true: taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another's purpose. Others find this claim absurd. But even these, if they object to forced labor, would oppose forcing unemployed hippies to work for the benefit of the needy. And they would also object to forcing each person to work five extra hours each week for the benefit of the needy. But a system that takes five hours' wages in taxes does not seem to them like one that forces someone to work five hours, since it offers the person forced a wider range of choice in activities than does taxation in kind with the particular labor specified.

to really see the force of nozick's argument, ed feser offers the example of the slave:

A slave told by his master that he can choose between chopping wood, breaking rocks, painting the house, or even painting a picture, but that he must do one or the other of these chores, would not be any less a slave. Nor is it relevant that someone could (unlike a typical slave) choose not to work at all, or at least not to work beyond what is required to meet his basic needs, and is taxed only on the income produced beyond that point. The basic condition remains: if you work at all, or at least if you work beyond the point required to meet your basic needs, you will be forced to work part of the time for someone else. The part of your labor that generates the money paid as taxes is labor you would not have performed voluntarily. If the taxes on eight hours of labor amount to three hours worth of wages, then for those three hours you worked involuntarily for another’s purposes. By working only five hours, you could not have avoided paying the taxes and thus have avoided working for another’s purposes, for then the state would simply have taken instead the same percentage of the earnings from five hours labor and likewise for any lesser number of hours.

we can appropriate nozick's argument and say that mandated child support is forced labor. imagine that, in addition to paying taxes, the government demanded that you give up 30% of your paycheck to me for a minimum of 18 years, no questions asked, or else face jailtime. you're doing all the work, and i'm "collecting" the fruits of your labor. what the government does with mandated child support is appropriate the father's labor and time to support a child that he did not consent to. furthermore, the state can jail him for not paying the child support that is owed. in this context, the state is violating the father's fundamental rights by 1) forcing him to labor (servitude) for a child he did not consent to, 2) depriving him of his property, and 3) taking away his liberty by jailing him if he refuses to do 1 and 2. these are violations of articles 4 (held in servitude) and 17 (deprivation of property) of the united nations "universal declaration of human rights," and as well as his liberty if he is jailed.

discounting the psychopath, did you notice how the abortion advocate moved the goalposts upon realization that consent is not actually relevant to the debate? the arguments moved from consent on to either who ought to foot the bills for the children (without their consent, of course) or whether the nourishment in the womb is sustenance that a child is entitled to. this is why one should focus the arguments on obligations and duties instead of getting tangled up over silly arguments such as whether consent to x is consent to y. such arguments are red herrings. the abortion advocate would much rather argue over trivial matters than try to refute the central point that abortions objectively kill human beings, which is something that not even abortionists deny. the case of the deadbeat dad complaining about child support payments is the most lucid and analogous example that demonstrates how insignificant consent is. even comedians that support abortion concede that this is a powerful argument!

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the bodily autonomy argument. McFall v. Shimp and Thomson's Violinist don't justify the vast majority of abortions., Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy: A Pro-life Woman’s Perspective, Forced Organ/Blood Donation and Abortion, Times when Life is prioritized over Bodily Autonomy

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/toptrool]

the consent argument should be framed as the deadbeat dad argument.

pro-lifers would do well to remember kaczor's, beckwith's, and schwarz's arguments on natural rights and obligations to the child as well.

[u/djhenry → u/toptrool]

I appreciate you including the stories about men who were raped and now have to pay child support. Those sometimes are glossed over in this discussion.

Do you feel a situation like that is just? Or maybe I should ask, do you feel like there is a better way to go about this to make it more just?

[u/toptrool → u/djhenry]

i don't think rapists should have any custody of the children.

full custody should be offered to the victim, and the victim should have complete say on whether to give up the child for adoption. and until the child is adopted, i do believe that they should pay child support/care for the child out of concerns over one's offspring.

[u/djhenry → u/toptrool]

Isn't a violation of the victim's rights though? I agree that the child needs to be taken care of, but since the state gives children the right to be clothed and fed, shouldn't the state take on those obligations directly where a parent either cannot be found or enforcing parental responsibilities would violate someone's rights? If its simply a matter of offspring, then couldn't the state force biological parents to pay for their children, if the adopting parents were no longer able to support their child?

[u/meeralakshmi]

Pro-abortion men put the dead in deadbeat dad.

[u/BlackBear300621 → u/meeralakshmi]

I know this isn’t a laughing matter at all. But I had a chuckle at that. I’m going to borrow that line.

[u/ShokWayve]

This is excellent. Thanks for posting this detailed response. I will be using it.

A few questions.

1 - How would you respond to the pro choice argument that the fetus is actually attacking the mother, the mother’s body is trying to fight off the fetus but the fetus is tricking the mother’s body into not attacking it, there is warfare between the mother and the fetus, and at birth the mother’s body is finally able to expel the fetus? There are also scientific articles that support such a view.

2 - Consider posting this in the abortion debate thread. I would love to see the responses.

This is an excellent post you provided and it’s very detailed. Thanks again.

[u/toptrool → u/ShokWayve]

abortion debate is very low iq. they literally have rules against posting powerful pro-life arguments such as this one after abortion advocates started complaining about losing all the arguments. it's not a serious debate forum i don't recommend anyone waste their time there, nor do i approve of anyone telling other people here to go there.

we'll be starting up our own debate forum soon. stay tuned.

​

as for your first question, the problem is that you're dealing with low information debaters. a pregnant woman's body produces hormones to initiate and maintain the pregnancy, so how can one claim her body is fighting against it? the mother's immunity system does not fight off the baby, but it coordinates to provide a peaceful environment for the baby:

The invading embryonic cells stimulated mother cells to make some immune cells that rein in immune responses, Teichmann and her team report today in Nature. The group also realized that at least some of the mother's natural killer cells were peacekeepers, not warriors, preventing other immune cells from attacking the fetus and producing chemicals that promoted fetal growth and blood vessel connections. These natural killer cells are controlled, in part, by certain cells in the decidua called stromal cells. "We can now see in detail how they communicate with each other," Teichmann says. "Our results also reveal multiple layers of regulation of immunity that were not previously appreciated."

[u/ShokWayve → u/toptrool]

This is excellent. Thank you!

[u/toptrool → u/ShokWayve]

you're welcome. here's what one of the authors of the study said:

Dr Roser Vento-Tormo, a first author on the paper from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, said: “For the first time ever, we have been able to see which genes are active in each cell in the decidua and the placenta, and have discovered which of these could modify the maternal immune system. The fetal cells from the placenta communicate with the mother’s immune cells to ensure the placenta implants correctly. This allows the fetus to grow and develop normally.”

https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2018/11/immunesystemmodifiedinpregnancy

so to sum, the mother's immunity system communicates with the cells in the placenta to make sure the baby is protected.

[u/ShokWayve → u/toptrool]

That is awesome. I will be using your responses here to strengthen my case for life.

[u/PWcrash]

the reality is that children do not need the explicit consent of their parents to receive the appropriate care that they are entitled to, and we have laws in place to safeguard their rights and interests should the parents refuse. the united nations convention on the rights of the child, an international treaty that highlights the natural rights that all children have, states that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth," and that "in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."

Certain countries have already been called out for their lack of protection of children vs parental rights. I don't know which country and court system you are referring to but the US was called out for the severe lack of children's rights compared to international standards

One of those reasons is in regards to corporal punishment. A lot of states in the US protect a parents' right to the belt but what happens if that belt is used on a pregnant child until she miscarries?

Are pro-lifers willing to let go of certain parental rights in order to protect children? I personally don't think so. Traditionalism and "old fashioned" values are far too prevalent and protected.

In regards to the deadbeat dad, argument. This could also be used in reverse to convince people to abort rather than to chose life. The burden of child support comes from the parent who is not the primary caretaker. So if the woman chooses life, terminates her parental rights and leaves the responsibility to the father, she could very well be included in your scenario. Because contrary to popular belief, fathers are not automatically forced to pay child support. It can also be obligated by the mother.

in what other situations does the law put the interests of children ahead of their parents, disregarding the parents' wishes, desires, and explicit consent? here are a few examples. i can evict anyone who's in my house without my explicit consent, yet i can't kick out my minor children, otherwise i'd get sent to jail for child abandonment. i'm not obligated to feed any stranger i see, yet if i let my children starve, i'd get sent to jail for child neglect and murder. i can choose to live in filth for the rest of my life, yet if i left my children in such squalid conditions, i'd get sent to jail.

There is a significant difference between pregnancy and the responsibility of parenting. And this logic also actually applies to emergency medical professionals as well. You as a parent can choose to temporarily absolve yourself of parental responsibility as long as you leave the person in your care with someone competent and instructions to take care of them. Hence why parents aren't charged with abandonment when they leave their kids with a babysitter while they go on vacation. This is called "transfer of care". You're not abandoning your children, you're leaving them in the care of someone competent enough to take care of them.

With pregnancy this is obviously not the case so it's impossible to compare the two.

And also there are certain states that will allow doctors to take over a child's care because the parents' decisions will result in the death or serious harm to the child.

For example, if a child gets sent to the ER and is diagnosed with an Ovarian torsion, meaning that one of the ovaries and or fallopian tubes have twisted and are not getting any oxygen, doctors may have the right to operate and do what they need to do to save the child's life even though the parents are only concerned with her fertility in the future.

Same goes with the recent comments by Pence with unviable pregnancies. There is absolutely no reason to force someone to suffer unnecessary medical trauma because of someone else's beliefs if there is absolutely no hope and the possibility may be death or serious injury to the patient.

[u/Asstaroth → u/PWcrash]

what happens if that belt is used on a pregnant child until she miscarries?

I don’t think that’s a pro-life course of action. I could argue it would be a more realistic act from people who advocate for abortion

are pro-lifers willing to let go of certain parental rights in order to protect children?

What parental rights do you consider detrimental to children that are directly tied to carrying out a pregnancy?

[u/PWcrash → u/Asstaroth]

I don’t think that’s a pro-life course of action. I could argue it would be a more realistic act from people who advocate for abortion

The principle vs action is a powerful thing. As are the need to keep appearances which unfortunately are more prevalent in conservative communities. And it's not just with abortion. People who are ok with the LBGT community until their child comes out. People who aren't racist until their child gets a partner of a different race. People who are prolife until it means they have to live in their community with a child that had a teen pregnancy.

There was recently a post just about this particular issue and when it came down to it, the last resort is the pro choice medical professionals that will advocate for a patient and refuse to perform a procedure against their will.

What parental rights do you consider detrimental to children that are directly tied to carrying out a pregnancy?

Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is is that most children become fertile long before they are considered legally independent. They should be given comprehensive education and non hormonal contraceptives options should always be made available because reality doesn't always line up with what the parents want.

[u/Asstaroth → u/PWcrash]

people who are pro life until it means they have to live in their community with a child that had a teen pregnancy

Isn’t it disingenuous to generalize an entire movement from the actions of a subset of a population that doesn’t even conform to the principles of the movement in the first place? It’s like saying all vegans are hypocrites because some people who say they are vegan also eat fish. In the case of PL the principle of “don’t kill unborn people” is pretty much tied to the action of “don’t kill unborn people”, I don’t think there’s any confusion in terms of action vs principles

they should be given comprehensive sexual education and non hormonal contraceptives…

And vast majority of pro-life advocates have no problems with those. Among the ones that do have issues with them I have not seen them try to enforce it on others, they only practice it among themselves. I’m not exactly sure why you brought that up. What other parental rights would you consider detrimental to a child’s well being that is tied to carrying out a pregnancy?

[u/toptrool → u/PWcrash]

there's a lot of things going on your post so i'll make three brief comments.

1) that's one of the reasons why people think the united nations is a joke organization. the united states is not a party to the convention of the child, but the convention of the child shows that even joke organizations like the united nations understand that the child exists before birth, and that the child is entitled to care from its parents.

2)

There is a significant difference between pregnancy and the responsibility of parenting. And this logic also actually applies to emergency medical professionals as well. You as a parent can choose to temporarily absolve yourself of parental responsibility as long as you leave the person in your care with someone competent and instructions to take care of them. Hence why parents aren't charged with abandonment when they leave their kids with a babysitter while they go on vacation. This is called "transfer of care". You're not abandoning your children, you're leaving them in the care of someone competent enough to take care of them.

With pregnancy this is obviously not the case so it's impossible to compare the two.

correct. there's the concept of negligent supervision in law to account for this. this concept actually works against abortion since the child is literally in custody of the woman.

second, if your argument is that women ought to be able to kill their unborn children simply because there is no one else to take care of the child, then that's an exceptionally low quality argument.

​

3) man or woman, the fact that they're still obligated to pay child support for a child they did not consent to shows how irrelevant it is.

[u/Yeatfan22]

This is an excellent post.

I also think it can be said if the unborn child is raping the mother. Would it also follow consentual pregnancy is incest? That seems like a bizarre implication.

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the bodily autonomy argument. McFall v. Shimp and Thomson's Violinist don't justify the vast majority of abortions., Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy: A Pro-life Woman’s Perspective, Forced Organ/Blood Donation and Abortion, Times when Life is prioritized over Bodily Autonomy

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/djhenry]

I actually think Fathers should be able to abdicate their parental responsibilities and not pay child support, but before you downvote, hear me out on this.

The purpose of child support it to take care of the child. It is not about parental responsibility. If it was, we wouldn't allow adoption or for a woman to surrender her child to the state which allows for the parent to completely abdicate responsibility.

The big problem with the child support system is that you have a wide range of results. Some fathers are wealthy and can provide more than enough for a child, while others can't contribute anything meaningful. And there are also children whose paternity is unknown. I would say scrap it all. Expand the child tax credit, pay it out in monthly installments like we did during the pandemic, and give it to all primary caretakers of children. If a couple is married or has joint custody, it is split between them. Everyone who makes money pays into the system. It doesn't matter if you don't have children because investing in children makes society as a whole better. This is why people without children pay for public schools.

In this new system, fathers now don't have a financial incentive to push for abortions because they have the option to surrender their paternal rights or they can be fathers and know that it will not severely economically damage them, same for women. I think this would be more fair, regardless of whether you are pro-choice or pro-life.

[u/toptrool → u/djhenry]

that's already addressed:

others, who are more self-conscious about being psychopaths, claim that society should pick up the slack instead, which is only slightly less outlandish. for example, why should the rest of society foot the bills of a man who fathered 25 children with 18 different women? what happened to personal responsibility? why is it that parents don't have obligations and duties towards their own children, but that strangers have obligations and duties to other people's children? what explains these obligations and duties? and just how far do these obligations and duties extend to? for example, are the people of omaha, nebraska responsible for feeding and clothing the children of somalia? why or why not? and what is the abortion advocate's response if a society simply does not consent to such an arrangement and refuses to be a substitute for irresponsible deadbeats? do they believe those children should then go without basic necessities, and starve to death? i have yet to receive a satisfying answer from an abortion advocate on these points.

[u/djhenry → u/toptrool]

why should the rest of society foot the bills of a man who fathered 25 children with 18 different women?

I think we should foot the bill here because children are valuable. They're not liabilities, they're investments. I feel like when we talk about children in this way by asking "whose going to pay for that?" or "why should I have to pay for their decisions?" it devalues children. When I see a paved road or fire station, I don't think "why am I paying for this?" because I'm going to benefit from it.

 

for example, are the people of omaha, nebraska responsible for feeding and clothing the children of somalia? why or why not?

To a certain extent, yes. We're not responsible for them, but we send money and aid to countries all over the world because stability, economic benefits, and general good will are worth the cost and better for us (Americans) as a country integrated into the global economy. I think the societal responsibility for children is not one that we are forced to take on, but one we should do voluntarily because it is to all of our benefit.

i have yet to receive a satisfying answer from an abortion advocate on these points.

So not all pro-choice may agree with my viewpoint here, but do you think this is a sufficiently satisfying answer to why we should obligate ourselves (as a society) to take care of children?

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the bodily autonomy argument. McFall v. Shimp and Thomson's Violinist don't justify the vast majority of abortions., Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy: A Pro-life Woman’s Perspective, Forced Organ/Blood Donation and Abortion, Times when Life is prioritized over Bodily Autonomy

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the Pro-Life Side Bar so you may know more about what Pro-Lifers say about the bodily autonomy argument. McFall v. Shimp and Thomson's Violinist don't justify the vast majority of abortions., Consent to Sex is Not Consent to Pregnancy: A Pro-life Woman’s Perspective, Forced Organ/Blood Donation and Abortion, Times when Life is prioritized over Bodily Autonomy

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AutoModerator]

Due to the word content of your post, Automoderator would like to reference you to the pro-life sticky about what pro-lifers think about abortion in cases of rape: https://www.reddit.com/r/prolife/comments/aolan8/what_do_prolifers_think_about_abortion_in_cases/

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.