Basically, the man has the right to, before birth of the child, sign a form stating that they will opt out of being a parent to the child, thus removing the inevitable burden of child support on them.
I think it's perfectly reasonable, considering the current system is completely unreasonable.
Trolls need not reply.
>>67219641
Sweden is trying to make this happen
>>67219641
Makes perfect sense to me
ehh, don't know.
In theory it might be good because women might be less stupid but in the end I think the men who'll do this will be pariahs
>>67219832
That's why I posted this, due to the controversy surrounding this. As much as I hate Sweden, I really like their approach to this.
So far I haven't seen a single valid argument refuting this. They've mostly been stuff like "well man up your actions have consequences" (except if you're a woman) or "it's 50% you!"
I endorse both abortion and financial abortion. Nobody should be shackled to a child they don't want.
Seems fine to me. Never made sense that the woman can choose whether or not to be a mother but the man is forced to be a father.
I think it should be assumed that the man has no financial obligation, but he can opt in. That way a woman doesn't wait too long to have an abortion because she mistakenly believes the man is going to help out, and men don't get shackled with kids they didn't even know about until after the birth.
>>67219989
Do you really care about the opinions of other people if it means keeping an extra $500 a month and not giving it to some bitch who will just spend it on new shoes?
>>67220012
That's how I feel. Unfortunately, this is going to be very far off until this gets accepted.
>>67220070
Yeah, the fact that the mother basically chooses if the father becomes a parent is completely bizarre.
Apparently in the woman's case it's "bodily autonomy" and that's why abortion is okay for them but spending 18 years of your life paying $x to a child or you get thrown in jail has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. Sounds like slavery to me.
My money my decision
The financial burden of the child would need to be carried by society then. Pay for your own hellspawns.
I think a law like this would just incourage single motherhood.
>>67220174
It's not what I feel about it since it's highly unlikely I will ever have sex but here on /pol/, no matter how touch they act all the time, you still have loads of threads asking if they should go out with their maga hats so to answer your question: It may be irrelevant to me but the /pol/ users do care how people see them
>>67219995
>That's why I posted this, due to the controversy surrounding this. As much as I hate Sweden, I really like their approach to this.
Except the main reason they wuldn't have money is because of the welfare state that focus on giving shit to inmigrants that refuse to work and shit out more than 3 children on average.
People who should really be aborting their shitspawns refuse to do so.
#MyMoneyMyRules
This is a good idea
Any man who hasn't as a vasectomy is frankly stupid.
>>67220241
I guess that's an argument that it would end up being carried by society, but isn't that then the fault of the woman for having a child that she cannot financially support? And why would I pay for something that was completely unintentional and I want no ties to?
>>67220317
Fair enough, personally I would take the money. Plus how would people find out? It's not like this would be public information.
>>67220381
I agree, except in the cases of some taxes obviously such as roads and education. That's the cost to living in a country I guess.
>>67220421
I guess if you don't want to have kids in the future, sure.
>>67219995
>>67220174
you see, part of the problem I have with this is women typically don't have children without a man first ejaculating in her vagina.
If a man can sign away his fatherhood he essentially forces a woman to be a single mother and dooms the child to all the effects of having a single mother.
We should be working to restore the family, not focusing on legislation that further destroys the idea of the family.
>>67220317
>unlikely I will ever have sex
lol wtf dude get off /pol/, go to a redneck bar, talk loudly about how your settlement with Costco just came through. You'll get laid.
>>67220241
To add to this, i think that opting out of parenthood by paying child support is already a crock of shit.
Fathers need to stay with their children and raise them.
Child support is only around 500€ per month or so anyway. If youre out making children but fant afford this you should opt out of life instead famalam.
>>67220564
not everybody will know, ofcourse but everyone within your social circle will and that can fuck you over.
I mean shit, you can lose your job for posting "lol nignogs" and somebody finds out.
>>67220578
basically I'm saying this is cultural marxism, but this time working for men.
It's still fucking cultural marxism though.
>>67219641
If Bernie put this on his agenda he'd get 100% of the black male vote.
>>67219641
Sounds good to me.
>>67220578
That's a fair point, but what about in the case of where they don't want a child, the man uses a condom and there was an accidental pregnancy. Women have the power to get out of that situation, men should too.
She doesn't have to be a single mother. She can abort or give the baby up for adoption. If she's that adamant, then she will have to do it alone, because I wouldn't want any ties to an accidental child.
>>67220672
But is that really fair if it's an accidental child that you don't want any ties to? I guess if you're the kind of person that thinks "that kid has 50% of my DNA I must look out for them" that's all you, but many people do not want that financial burden.
>>67220742
I don't think you'd lose your job for not wanting a parasite on your paycheck every month.
>>67221056
Why?
>>67221056
>She doesn't have to be a single mother. She can abort or give the baby up for adoption.
so now the man is forcing the woman to give up the child, and do something she doesn't want to do.
sound familiar?
>That's a fair point, but what about in the case of where they don't want a child, the man uses a condom and there was an accidental pregnancy.
so why is it wrong in your mind for women to force men to raise children but it's OK for men to force women to give their child up, or kill it?
if a woman has a right to kill her fucking baby then a man sure as fuck has a right not to have to pay for it
equality bitch
>>67219832
>>67219995
Let's not get ahead of ourself. It's proposed by one of the youth parties, The Liberals, whose mother party have 5% of the seats in the parliament.
We won't see this in a long time if ever. It's adopted by the youth party on principle, very much like how the youth party of the Left have "fought" for 6 hours working day for basically forever.
On topic, I'm for it since the only other sensible option would be to force the mother to have an actual abortion if the father didn't consent to the kid.
>>67221056
The mother has a far greater trauma from an abortion, or giving away the child. It doesnt compare.
>>67219641
Perfectly logical and equal.
>>67221125
I may be wrong, but I don't think it would happen unless your boss is a hardcore feminist.
>>67221332
Well what if the man wants to keep the child but the woman doesn't? Sucks for him, she can abort it because of bodily autonomy.
In the woman's case, she can: abort the baby, give it up for adoption, or keep it knowing that it will be tough because the man does not want to be involved. She has three options in this scenario, in the man's scenario he has none at all. He will not get to keep the baby.
Why should the man be forced (basically like slavery) to provide for a child that he doesn't want just because the woman wants it?
She doesn't have to give it up or kill it. She can raise it herself, but it will be difficult because the man wants no part in it. How is that not fair?
>>67221983
Well that sucks for her I guess. She can raise it herself, but it will be difficult for her to do. And even there is trauma, is that fair to then put 18 years of financial burden on the man, or he gets thrown in jail? That's slavery.
>>67222205
He doesn't need to be a hardcore feminist, he just needs to feel enough pressure to notice this might bring bad publicity and that's easy when feminists assume a gang mentality
>>67220578
>If a man can sign away his fatherhood he essentially forces a woman to be a single mother
That's why regular abortion is part of the deal. If the woman can't have a kid without a meal ticket, she can kill it. If she chooses to keep it, her poverty is entirely on her.
Absolutely should be a thing, if women can abort men should be able to also.
>>67222205
I have no problem with making deadbeat fathers bleed for their retardedness.
>>67220241
>The financial burden of the child would need to be carried by society then. Pay for your own hellspawns.
>I think a law like this would just incourage single motherhood.
Yeah that's why prior to the invention of welfare statism and child support laws you saw such rampant single motherhood in society.
>>67223157
I have no idea what live was like in the 'olden days' you are referring to, and i dont think it is relevant for this discussion.
Either argue something specific or buzz off.
>>67222884
So you're mad at men for not wanting to raise a child that they never intended to have and take on the financial, physical, and mental burden that would be the result of this?
I don't think that's very fair.
>>67219641
Absolutely degenerate and is only getting attention from MRA cucks wanting "equality".
If a child is born the biological father should be held liable to their own spawn. Why should taxpayers have to take the burden for every irresponsible cumshot?
Additionally this would pressure more women into abortion which leads to greater sexual promiscuity. Russia dealt with this in the early 20th century and it was a disaster.
>>67223492
Since even minor subtlety is apparently beyond you, I will state it plainly. Your contention that single motherhood would be worse without child support laws is factually bullshit, as that's the state society has been in for 99.9% of it's existence and yet "single motherhood" has only been a problem in any significant capacity since governments have implemented these laws within the past century.
>>67223862
>If a child is born the biological father should be held liable to their own spawn. Why should taxpayers have to take the burden for every irresponsible cumshot?
Non sequitur. Welfare statism is not some immutable law of nature we have to deal with no matter what, so stating it as a given when evaluating some other policy is horseshit.
>>67223775
Intent does not matter at all. Your proposal isnt exactly fair either.
Regular abortion
>perform a procedure that costs hundreds of dollars
>may be illegal or unavailable depending on where you live
>risk for your health
>risk becoming infertile
>suffer hormonal imbalances as a result, often resulting in depression or other mental illnesses
Male abortion
>just sign the dotted line
>done
>>67219641
I think that alimony and child support should not exist to begin with.
If the woman can't afford to take of the kids, the ex husband is not obligated to give her his money, he is just obligated to make sure the kids won't starve and such, so if she has a problem with making ends meet, she just has to dump the kids on the ex husband and he'll feed and clothe them.
Thus solving the problem of custody bullshit.
You want to live seperately and get a divorce? That's fine, but you still share responsibility for the kids like adults.
>>67224313
Well, biology isn't exactly fair. If it was equal for man and women, man would have to get the abortion, but that's not the way it is.
And come on, the alternative is a man spending 18 YEARS of his life raising something he doesn't want to which can severely inhibit his future.
Intent does matter.
>>67222205
>>67222493
two wrongs do not make a right.
I agree the system is unfair against men but there are some shit that men just do.
We fight the wars, we win the bread, we should man up and raise our child.
This will only lead to an increased welfare state. Everyone knows single mothers are statistically the worst thing that can ever happen to a child. Not only will the mother need government assistance to provide for the child but the child will be more likely to end up on welfare.
I can just not get behind legislation that will increase the amount of single mothers in society.
>Well what if the man wants to keep the child but the woman doesn't? Sucks for him, she can abort it because of bodily autonomy.
Then the man should learn his lesson and not stick his dick in the first willing hole. Men are designed to be able to get multiple women pregnant while women are designed to be impregnated by one man. Life itself is unfair to women in this regard. "Fairness" has always been the disguise that cultural marxism uses to push it's agenda of people being reliant upon the state.
>In the woman's case, she can: abort the baby, give it up for adoption, or keep it knowing that it will be tough because the man does not want to be involved. She has three options in this scenario, in the man's scenario he has none at all. He will not get to keep the baby.
I notice you have no concern for the baby itself. Yeah, fuck that thing, right? Just kill it, or leave it with strangers, or doom it to having a single mother and living in poverty. Why the fuck should we care about the next generation?
>Why should the man be forced (basically like slavery) to provide for a child that he doesn't want just because the woman wants it?
Children happen from sex. If you don't want a child, don't have sex. If you don't want the mother to abort, only have sex with a woman who are willing to raise a family, like, i dunno, your wife.
>>67219641
BERTRAND RUSSELL WAS RIGHT!
>>67223862
> muh feelings
>>67224517
He doesnt even have to raise the child, just support it financially. Its not like a pregnancy just happens anyway. Dont want children, use protection.
>protection is never 100% safe
If you manage to get a girl pregnant despite using a combination of protections then tough luck. Praise the lord for you overly potent manhood and deal with it.
>>67219641
stupid, but it does point out feminist duplicity, which is nice
>>67219641
>I think it's perfectly reasonable, considering the current system is completely unreasonable.
it's logically consistent with the present system, but the present system is wrong. ie. 2 wrongs don't make a right
>>67224558
"Man up" isn't an argument.
That's basically what you are relying on right now.
Also, I'm referring to before birth, so it's a fetus, not a baby.
Sex can be recreational, in some case the intent is not to make a baby.
Your argument is heavily flawed.
>>67224914
Protection can still fail, it's not a 100% success rate. Saying "tough luck" isn't an argument, sorry.
