Any man who is honest with a woman and tell her he doesn't want to be a father if she get pregnant he shouldn't be called a deadbeat father. The same way a woman shouldn't be called a murderer for aborting a fetus she doesn't want to carry.
@@nathanjora7627 Exactly! At the end of the day people are still going to have sex. You can protect yourself all you want, but sometimes condoms break & pills aren't effective enough, then what. If you consent to the act and I told you upfront then it is what tf it is.
@@KeetWeet Agreed. And I’m watching his follow up video... it’s almost making things worse. He has this fear that actually irresponsible men that just purely don’t have any care in the world for how their actions could impact others will benefit too much from a policy that allows men to get out of parenthood, and... I can understand that. Hell, I’ll even agree with that, casanovas that don’t give a damn about wether or not they’ll get someone pregnant are doing something wrong and it’s a case where forcing them to own their responsibility is good. But 1) for one Casanova, how many normal men that were just too young or too economically unprepared, and that did take precautions but had bad luck, 2) since freakin when are we making policies based on « guilty until proven otherwise » ? If Matt wants the policy on parental rights to protect women that are victims of uncaring men, that’s fine, I’d say they still have the option to abort, but I still share his point of view since abortion isn’t without social and psychological consequences, and it has a financial cost as well (forcing men to pay for women’s abortions when they were the ones who didn’t want a baby seems entirely right to me). But how does that address or prevent the policy to address the issue of protecting men from manipulative women, or from sheer bad luck (which I’d bet is the most frequent reason) ? And I hate how he conflates the consequences of childbirth (damage on the body, risk of death and injury, etc), with the consequences of pregnancy (the social and financial standing etc). Like... Matt, we agree that there will be « consequences » to pregnancy in that sense, but that’s not the consequences we were talking about, we were talking about the consequence of « having a child », if you want to bring other consequences in the discussion feel free to do so but don’t equivocate them >
What a frustrating response to a caller to listen to. For any reason a woman would want to "opt out of parental responsibility" ( abort a pregnancy) a man could have the exact same reason to do the same thing, minus the donate my body argument obviously. Equal rights for both partners not special rights for women.
It's funny how he's like you don't want to be a deadbeat dad do you? Then turns around and acts like it's okay that the mom can just kill a baby lol Dave Chappelle said it best if she's allowed to kill the mother f***** I should be allowed to not pay for him. Even though both of these decisions are terrible in the people are horrible for making them but it is fair in this instance
He doesn't have to tell that to a woman. Women, like sperm donors, can take precautions beforehand to not get pregnant. If she gets pregnant, she has additional measures she can take that includes and should continue to include abortion.
Been listening to Matt for a LONG time and I totally disagree with him. Most of the Scandinavian countries have implemented a “legal abortion” option that allows the male to sign away all legal and monetary rights to a child. They did this to promote TRUE equality between the sexes. It also keeps the domestic violence rates lower because men never feel forced to do something that they don’t want to. Matt is totally off base here.
Matt has serious personality issues. He is so desperate to prove that he is one of the good men who doesn't hate women that he makes a fool of himself by getting confrontational over a completely rational point of contention.
@@DeaconVersion Yeah I feel like he probably has a lot of cis white male guilt going on. Such a disappointment to see current social trends influence someone who is supposedly a champion of critical thought.
@@CreedTheSpy Denmark does not have it. It was discussed politically in Denmark a few years ago, but was never put into law. As far as I can see, no country have it today.
The guy tells Matt that a father relinquishing his rights requires the signature of the mother, Matt acknowledged that it was unfortunate and yet his reply was "tough shit". Very disappointing to hear from a man who I find to be pretty reasonable in most situations.
@@bariumselenided5152 agreed brother! Ironically it's a response he doesn't accept himself. When religious people respond to his criticism with "oh well" "tough shit" or the popular "well that's just how it is" he dismisses them just as quickly. It's about progressing the conversation not dismissing people's legitimate arguments due to your ideology.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 I would never be arrogant enough to insist that I have the end all conclusion for a subject this complex. However, my initial comment was intended to point out the dismissive nature of Matt's argument and the hypocrisy of using cliche pro-life arguments against the caller, especially when he was simply trying to learn and gain understanding. But to answer your question more directly, I don't have a remedy currently, but I think it's a conversation that requires a lot more civility and understanding than what was shown by Matt here.
“You realize that you can have a vasectomy or have sex with someone who is infertile”. You mean just like a woman can get her tubes tied and only have sex with infertile men? The double standard here is amazing.
Yeah so I gotta say this is the first one where I wholeheartedly disagree with you guys. The whole idea of “don’t have sex if you don’t want a kid. If you have sex you better expect you might get pregnant and then you’re 100% forced to have and take care of a kid” seems VERY similar to the other side saying women shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion because “you had sex”. A guy can take ALL precautions, do everything possible, and still get a girl pregnant. So because he’s taking care of his biological need in a safe, consensual way, that means that he’s stuck with a kid for 20 years? Like come on, we have to be more advanced than that. If both people go into it agreeing “we don’t want kids and this is ‘to fulfill our biological needs, nothing more’”, then they should each have a say in whether they need to contribute for 20 years. Just because a woman decides “I now randomly want this kid”, the guy really should have more of a say than “fuck you, you’re responsible now and get ready for a multi-decade commitment”. Idk I love you guys but this seemed really regressive and shortsighted. I really think you guys should rethink this one
J Paterson no, I heard them, and then also heard them clearly say “you can go to court and sever parental rights if the WOMAN agrees and signs off to it”. So a woman can decide if she wants a child? She can decide if she gets an abortion? But a man can’t have consensual sex with a woman while taking precautions, and yet he is somehow liable for a pregnancy? What kind of woman would actually “sign off” on severing a man’s obligation, when she can just use him for 20 years for free money? Literally none. This is such a nonsensical, shallow argument.
@@philorgneopolotin8762 No, the caller made this claim, Matt did not try to specify what the laws were (they vary from place to place). I have NEVER seen where the mother has to agree for you to give up parental rights, but there are times and places where this impacts your ability to interact with the child but does not take away the mandate for child support.
@@randolphphillips3104 Then Matts reaction should be that he doesn't know all the details and that it may vary depending where you live. This "tough shit" act in this specific situation is, to be bluntly, rather stupid and contrary to everything we know about Matt's views. I mean, look at the comment section... I have never seen something like this.
@@MrXantrias He did say exactly that about laws to terminate, watch it again. He also said that in his opinion it didn't matter, and the "tough shit" was about parental liability and life not being fair sometimes.
If I want to abort , I should have the right to do so . But if I want to keep the baby against the father's wishes ,I should be able carry the pregnancy to term but should not be able to force the father to take care of the baby. Having the baby was my decision ,so its my responsibility. Well a decent guy would help out but not because I am forcing him to since he didnt force me to abort the baby or carry the baby. All my choice.
Take this to a family law lawyer, and he will tell you that the state will now allow this, because the mother CANNOT sign away the rights of the child by absolving the father of support payments. Plus, the state is VERY interested in keeping women and children off the dole, and they'll do whatever it takes to achieve this. Even if it means death to some fathers.
"I bet there's a quick answer to your question! If there isn't, we'll postpone the conversation because we're low on time.." then the video is over 21 mins....lol
Matt probably forgot about the time and got VERY emotional and irrational. My uneducated guess on this is that Matt was abandoned as a child, and this question struck a chord with him.
I am, unfortunately, in a position similar to the one Tyler described. My girlfriend and I both lost our jobs due to covid, although I am in the process of getting a new one, and are both living with our parents. If I get the job I am applying for, once we factor in the cost of living around my area on top of the average costs of raising a child, we would still be losing 15,000-20,000 a year for an estimated 8-10 years until my raises would "break-even." After several weeks of discussing the situation, she has agreed with me that this couldn't have happened at a worse time for us. Despite that, she refuses to change her mind but, in fact, wants more kids which would further the debt to an insurmountable level. In some of our discussions on what to do, she has said things like "she wished she hadn't told me but just left, so she didn't have to deal with my negativity towards the situation" and that "she was done with me and I would never be a part of this kids life" even though I've told her repeatedly that while I disagree with the decision, I want the best life for my kid. Yes, I consented to have sex. Yes, I fully acknowledge that it is her body and her choice. I was aware that sex could lead to pregnancy, but it turns out I'm just the special 1% that the birth control failed on haha. I would say that I don't feel I consented to be a father but will own up to my responsibilities anyway. I also feel that in some way I've also been coerced, (from her previously mentioned statements), and stripped of any decision making power over the situation. She seems to completely disregard fact-based arguments and the overall situation in favor of the perception that having a child is what will "get her life back on track." I don't know what the most correct answer to this situation is and I would never want her to make her feel like she has to abort the pregnancy just because I don't want it. Either way, it will be a huge, life-altering decision but my anecdotal experience as of now is that it sucks I will be essentially forced into financial responsibility for at least 18 years when I am currently struggling to support myself.
The "cost of a child" is a grossly inflated number used when fining men. I have kids. They are not nearly that expensive even when taken great care of, insurance etc. Depends on your situation. After diapers an possibly formula depending on choice, its mainly a lot of milk and grains for several years before the finger foods start. Thats actually very cheap. Mine don't even have to wear 2nd hand clothes. Ever. I accepted baby gifts, used consignment shops for age dependent things like strollers etc and passed good stuff along to other parents. All I'm saying is you guys will probably do better than you fear.
This shit is so fucked. I’m almost glad I’m entirely unlovable now, I’ll never have to deal with this. But it seems obvious to me that vasectomies should be way WAY more common, and maybe even available in high school, like during a summer break so you are guaranteed to have time to recover
I see your concern but come on man. That's your child. You can't treat him like a car that needs maintainance. If you try hardyou'llsucceed, you'll be able to find a job and live through it. My mother did it with 3 kids alone, you can surely do to. Stay strong.
Another vehemently disagree with Matt on this one. I must admit I was surprised and somewhat shocked at his inflexibility and unwillingness to even consider that he might be wrong.
@@nuorigin What if a married couple in the low income range who already has six children they cannot raise themselves without financial support from tax money wants "to f*** without considering the consequences" ... OK with that?
"Sex isn't consent to parenthood, unless you're a man then it is unless the mother relinquishes you of your responsibilities." In other words, sex for a man is consent to parenthood. Being forced to use your body and work harder than you otherwise would for 18 years is not as bad as being forced to carry a baby for 10 months? Okay, but which is worse doesn't determine what your rights are. The fact it's worse to cut someone's hand off instead of just a finger without their consent doesn't mean it's okay to cut someone's finger off without consent. This is simple special pleading.
Not to mention that as Matt himself has said before, a child should not be a _punishment._ That's how you get a toxic family situation, this isn't some car that needs money to be repaired, it's a goddamn human being.
Antidotes? Non-penetrative sex Same sex Condoms all the time, for the entire time Reversible vasectomy No man EVER has to be a parent if he doesn't want to be. Don't impregnate someone. End of story. Like, it astounds me men don't understand they are in full control of whether/how sperm leaves their bodies.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 you're right, we should force all women to only play with themselves or have homosexual sex if they don't want to get pregnant. Oh sorry you said men, so that makes it okay right?
@@ThatWriterWriter1 "If you don't want to be a father, fuck another dude" is basically the same as "if you want to be married, marry someone of the opposite sex"
@Steve Doud Sorry but the woman is deciding whether the pregnancy comes to term. Unilaterally deciding some one else's rights isn't equality. Your position is sexist. You have different standards of responsibility based on sex.
Women have options when it comes to choosing to be a parent. Men do not. It is certainly not equal Matt and you know it. OMFG: "If he's broke he shouldn't be fucking." Well shit Matt, if she's broke, she shouldn't be fucking.
@@skel760 Here is a challenge for you. List the number of options a woman has and then list the number of options a man has. if you do it right, you'll see what I mean
@@chickenman297 Because she is the one who physically endures it. Wth is so hard to comprehend about that? If you willingly have sex with a woman who you have no intentions with, eg you just want to get off on her body, there are consequences if you impregnate her. Why should you be able to just walk? You made a choice knowing this could be an out come but you went ahead anyway for your own satisfaction. You want your fun with no responsibility. She can go pound sand, right? What is so hard for you to grasp? I don’t get it. Grow up.
@@chickenman297I think if you’re being honest with yourself, you’d realise that life is tough for both men and women, and that both have choices to make, although the nature of both the ‘toughness’ and choices may be different between the sexes. You may feel that men are ‘short-changed’ in certain ways, but women are also short-changed in other ways. Men and women are equal in the sense that life is tough for both sexes.
@@williamrisbridger60 Then why do we almost never hear about the issues that men face compared to the issues women face? This is the inequality that does the most damage. I don't feel that men are "short-changed", I know this for a fact and it is very rarely addressed. I know for a fact that women are also "short-changed" and it is in my face almost every day. My other question is why you felt the need to put it in the terms of " _feel_ that men are short-changed" and "women _are_ also short-changed"? Is there some unconscious bias (as the radicals would put it) at work there? These are honest questions not meant to belittle you or anything. Just trying to make you think about it.
I'm a big fan of the show and Matt in general, but man I could barely sit through this one. First dislike I've ever given here. His inability to listen and understand the points of his interlocutor was embarrassing. His arguments were straight up copy pasted from pro lifers, as was his emotional tone. No one, man or woman should be forced into parenthood. If a woman gets pregnant and the man for whatever reason is not ready to be a father, he shouldn't be forced into fatherhood. If the woman is fine with being a single parent, then that is her choice, her money and her life.
The only situation I can come up with on short notice is if the woman lied or changed her mind so that the man thought the couple would not keep the baby of a pregnancy resulted at the time of conception and HER choice overwrites and now adds the responsibility he was deceived he was rid off. But if there is no evidence the case becomes he said - she said and that doesn't hold up legally for any of them and defaults to her bodily autonomy rights and his responsibility for having sex that *COULD* lead to a pregnancy. Also this doesn't mean a woman can go around having consequence free sex since if impregnated and she didnt want to carry it she would have to have the abortion procedure - which cant be a pleasant/insignificant thing physically or mentally.
@@chainclaw07 Yes, the woman isn't free of consequences, but _she alone_ determines the consequences for her _and_ the potential father, no matter what... That's the problem! If it's the woman's right to determine what happens to her, then it should be the right of the man to do the same. Right now she's the one that determines parts of what happens the next 2 decades of someone else's life!
@@se7enhaender both run the risk of becoming parents by having sex. That's just a fact. IF we look at it that both have a responsibility to a potential child then yes, women are granted more control in this situation BUT it stems from the same principal of bodily autonomy which men are also afforded those rights but doesn't apply since the fetus isnt connected to them....
@@chainclaw07 I'm not arguing against bodily autonomy, so let's not go there. Calling them parents by default is poisoning the well a little bit in light of what the discussion is about... let's say both risk producing a child. Now what's your case for determining part of someone else's life?
@@se7enhaender I dont know these laws but I imagine them to be that the parent of a child is responsible for its wellbeing ... both of them. Since they procreated to bring it into the world. Thats the parental responsibility bit - if a woman OR a man doesn't want to be in its life it is mandated by law that that parent provide child support for the baby. However - inarguably the woman despite any notion prior to conception has a situation with HER body which is solely up to her to decide upon. Meaning she could've said she wanted a baby and then after the fact change that. The father isnt entitled an offspring based on that. So while both have parental responsibility from conception (since consenting adults should know that sex risks pregnancy) the woman is afford more control based on the pregnancy happens to her body
@@sebastep Its a false dicotomy. prochoice v pro life. Its actually prochoice v anti choice. Many people who are prochoice are also prolife. "Prolifers" are advocating for antichoice. Other wise theyd be advocating for these social programs as well. They do not.
@@jamesonrosen1773 plus, pro-lifers (in the US) are often pro-war (which kills people) and pro-death penalty (which kills people). They're really more pro-forced-birth.
The only issue I have with Matt's response is that when discussion the right to abortion, he's arguing from the perspective of moral principles, but when discussing men giving up parental rights he refers to laws instead. So from the female perspective he's talking about what should be, but from the male perspective he's discussion what is. It would be a better discussion if he addressed what should be with respect to giving up parental responsibilities, not what the laws might currently say.
Yep. And this is the first time I've disagreed with Matt and had to thumbs down the vid. The caller didn't do a good job of explaining and Matt didn't try to clarify.
Matt focuses on the the male’s say on the fetus. The caller never said anything of the sort. Matt resorts to name calling (deadbeat father) and trying to act as the law was something that can’t be wrong or should just be dismissed as “tough shit”. He says “we don’t make laws about who is broke”. We do in fact make laws that change with the economic standing of the person involved. Matt is wrong about this. One of the rare times I can say that.
I feel that Matt uses reality and well being as base. In this case, the laws protect the well being of a baby and possibly the mother. So I do t think that Matt went off too far from his standards. People have to understand that not all situations are a win-win. I agree that if a men impregnates a woman, he is responsible of raising the child. The well being of the most vulnerable human being is being protected.
Wow, Matt really sucked on this one. Instead of having a conversation about male parental rights he went nuts about the womans right to keep the child. That wasn't even in question. I agree with the caller about having a discussion about it atleast. It is not a clear issue, but if a woman has the right to abort a child, which she should have, then atleast a man who doesn't want the child might be justified in some circumstances to chose not to be a parent.
He definitely didn't want to acknowledge the double standard there. It also annoyed me how Matt tried to make the argument so simplistic when it clearly is not.
The person carrying the baby ALWAYS gets the choice. It's their body. PERIOD. He didn't "go nuts about the woman's right to 'keep the child.'" He SAID, it is the pregnant person's right to choose whatever is RIGHT FOR THEM AS THE BODY CARRYING the foetus.
@@joshriver75 It can be argued that an abortion is relinquishing the rights of parenthood and if women can do so then men should be able to as well. Both go into sex willingly (usually, rape is a different story) yet only one has all the power over the other's future? Not a fair system if you ask me. Father should be able to relinquish rights up until a reasonable amount of time before the point that a woman can get an abortion so she can then decide whether or not to be a single parent.
Only 5 minutes in, but so far Matt sounds like the anti-woman crowd regarding the consequences of sex. How is "If you have sex and the woman gets pregnant, assuming she doesn't abort, you're going to be a parent regardless of what you want" different from "if you have sex and the woman gets pregnant, you're going to be a parent regardless of what you want"? Ignoring the options to abort, obviously. Don't they both boil down to "actions have consequences and you're responsible for your actions and their consequences"?
@Patrick Names Well that's the contention. If women have an opt out option, this guy is saying men should too. "People have to be responsible for their actions" is literally an argument against abortions as well, should we disallow abortions?
@Patrick Names Only women should be held responsible for the action of chosing to make a baby? What? Your first statement, that men are held responsible for the choices of the woman, is the part the caller (and people in the comments) is saying shouldn't be allow in the exact same way a woman shouldn't be forced to have a child just because her husband/boyfriend wants it.
@Patrick Names Ah, yes, the good ol' "when someone seeks clarification, disregard them" technique. Welp, here's hoping an intelligent person comes along.
@Patrick Names - "No we shouldn't disallow abortions, the argument isn't analogous in that situation. As things stand men are held responsible for women's actions. Both parties make an embryo, only the woman has the choice to make a baby, and thus only the woman should be held responsible for that action." So fucking true!!!
Gotta say Matt didn't cover himself in glory here, I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions, but saying 'well if you don't want kids, don't fuck' is exactly what pro-lifers say to women about getting abortions, and I'm not sure how Matt didn't think about that. It's the exact same argument.
Gotta disagree with you. Pro-lifers say women shouldn't fuck if they don't want the consequences, but never mention that men shouldn't fuck if they don't want the consequences. All the "fun" is left to the men, while all the responsibility is left to the women.
@@Brandon-tz5pn the caller's point was that there should be some mechanism by which men absolve themselves of all responsibility. Yes, men "has" to pay child support. Because they are responsible for a human life entering the world.
@@cbaker71476 Pro-lifers are generally heard saying that to women because it's the woman's choice to have the abortion, but many pro-lifers also advocate for abstinence, which is aimed at men and woman, so really they are saying the same thing to men as well. On the point about absolving responsibility, people are disagreeing with Matt because he's saying men shouldn't be allowed to absolve their responsibility while there are several ways for women to do just that e.g. abortion, adoption etc. Both parties are responsible for human life entering the world, but both parties should also be allowed to say they don't want that responsibility. Seems like Matt is all for choice when it comes to pretty much every social issue except this one. He says that carrying a child to term changes a woman's body and her life, it also completely changes the man's life too, but he shouldn't be allowed a say in all this?
Not at all what he said nor meant, revist what he said. He said their are alternatives, and he also could have brought up just basic trust that the male and female will come to the middle and agree to abort before having sex if the case arises. Thats called maturity when dealing with something like sex, its not just fun and squirt sports fellas. Matts point is just know what your getting into and communicate with your partner before hand.
I find it interesting that Matt's arguments seem to be the same kind of arguments used in pro-life to explain why a woman shouldn't be able to abort. "If you didn't want to get pregnant you shouldn't have had sex, this is the consequence of your actions, if you don't like it, tough shit" "If you didn't want to be a parent you shouldn't have had sex, this is the consequence of your actions, if you don't like it, tough shit" "If you didn't want to (get pregnant/be a parent) You should have used contraception, or had sex with someone (without testicles/without a womb) or just played with yourself" They both kept bringing up 'It sounds like you just want to achieve consequence-free sex'. Hey guys?...That's word for word the arguments pro-life will use against abortions. I'm really surprised that they don't realize that hypocrisy. 'Oh women just want to have abortions so they can have all the sex they want consequence free'. That's the kind of thing they'd _immediately_ jump on if someone pro-life said it, yet here they are using that exact same straw-man on someone else. If you know it's a shitty argument and a strawman as you've said before many times, why the fuck are you both using it yourselves? "If he was broke, he shouldn't have been fuckin'!" - Matt If that sentence had EVER come out of a caller arguing pro-life, Matt would have torn it down in a second for being both a shit argument and in general a shitty thing to say to someone. While I don't have it on hand, I recall more than once Matt saying that a child should not be a _punishment._ This is something I agree with, it's an important sentiment because if you make a child a punishment, you're setting up an unhealthy situation where a child is going to grow up facing resentment from one of their parents based solely on their existence. That's the end result of making a child a punishment, _whether the parent in question is male or female._ Over and over Matt kept on bringing up the woman's right to carry the child if she chooses. Not _once_ did the caller say that was the problem but he just kept bringing it up over and over. He claims that no one is required to be a parent, yet goes back on that if the parent in question is male. Rather than address it he instead just poisoned the well by saying things like 'So you want to be a deadbeat father'? That's some really scummy argumentation and honestly I expect better than that from Matt. Getting into an accident and paying for the damages is not equivalent to being required to pay to support a child that you didn't consent to for the next 18 or so years. Something Matt said: "Someone being able to abdicate their rights as a parent, what that means is that that could represent an undue influence to force that person carrying a child, to terminate" (generous quote given the well-poisoning he did just before it) But Matt, didn't you just say five minutes prior: "If he was broke, he shouldn't have been fuckin'!" So you're not going to say the same thing to the woman? "Got pregnant and can't afford it yourself? Welp, tough shit you shouldn't have been fuckin'!" I think it's safe to say Matt would rightly call someone saying that to a woman to be a disgusting piece of shit. That's why I find it so shocking to hear those exact words unironically coming out of his mouth. What it smacks of is "A child should _never_ be a punishment...unless you're a man, in which case your child is absolutely a punishment". That's fucked up. Same with his constant poisoning of the well, assuming that _every_ male who can't support a child is just some deadbeat going 'Welp, I don't want any of this, fuck you bitch!'. It's the kind of inflammatory language that, again, pro-life uses saying 'All those sluts just want to fuck all the men they want without taking responsibility for it!'. If it's misogynist to use that king of argument aimed at a woman, how is it not equally misandrist to use it against a male? It isn't about simply giving people free-reign to, at any point, just toss their responsibilities away. It's about providing options to ensure that the decision to carry a child to term is made with the best information available. Here's a better system, having it so that both parties can opt _in_ to parental responsibilities, not having to opt _out_ of them. Woman doesn't wish for parental responsibilities? By all means, your choice. Men doesn't wish for parental responsibilities? Same right to chose. If both parents wish to accept responsibilities? Great! They can both opt into it legally and both be responsible. What's more, if a woman's decision to carry a child to term or not hinges entirely on having the support of two parental figures vs one, you can opt in _before_ pregnancy occurs. You then have peace of mind and can plan accordingly while avoiding the problem of the... "dude bros" as Matt put it. Otherwise, you have to plan based on the possibility of there only being the support of one parent, if the other did not yet consent to parenthood.
Maybe instead of hurling personal ad hominem assaults on his character ; why not just address his arguments. His system sounds miles better than the one we currently have. Why is it okay for women to have the freedom to consent to being parents and then not okay for men? I assumed that Matt cared about what's fair since he's on record saying that he's a secular humanist. So ask you, Matt and all of his supporters ; what exactly is fair about this arrangment?
I was going to type some of my thoughts into a comment because this segment really seemed sideways compared to the usually rock solid reasoning and logic I usually hear from Matt. You're comment hit every point I had stewing in my head so I'll just agree, thumbs up.
I think Matt is being incredibly hypocritical. He said (regarding men) "if you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime." That is exactly the same argument pro-lifers use against abortion rights. And that women just want consequence-free sex. I don't think sex should be viewed as a crime or immoral. And I don't like the idea that parenthood is a punishment. Matt also freaked out when the caller brought up the possibility of parenthood having financial burdens that a father may not be ready for or capable of handling. I wonder if Matt would consider financial instability a good reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.
Biological males can't carry foetuses. You're missing the point, UTTERLY. A biological male who can impregnate someone has to think BEFORE the act if they want to ever/now/next year be a parent. If they answer 'no' to that, then as the one person in the equation who can make the other person pregnant, it is their RESPONSIBILITY and RIGHT to STOP before they do make someone pregnant. There's no offspring prior to sex so prior to sex is when biological males have to make choices.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 So a woman is not? Really, that's the point. If a woman can opt out, why a man shouldn't for the same reason? We still require 2 people to have a pregnancy, it's not just the man.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 You're the one missing MY point. The same exact arguments you're using to deny men choice about parenthood can be used to argue against women's rights. Let me demonstrate with your last comment: A biological *female* who can become pregnant has to think BEFORE they act if they want to ever/now/next year be a parent. If they answer 'no' to that, then as the one person in the equation who can become pregnant, it is their RESPONSIBILITY and RIGHT to STOP before they do get themselves pregnant. There's no offspring prior to sex so prior to sex is when biological females have to make choices. Let me lay out my claim as simply as I can: Women should have complete control over whether they carry a baby to term or not. Women *and* men should both have the ability to renounce their parental rights/responsibilities.
@@ThatWriterWriter1, everything you just said applies to the woman as well.... The difference is, the woman gets to choose whether they want to keep the pregnancy and they get to force the unwilling partner into it. How do you feel about that happening the other way?
The parental obligation is to the fetus. That is equal for the partners, although the female has the far greater burden of gestation. Both have the same basic obligations to raise the child. That the female may terminate the pregnancy ending the obligations of both is a separable issue. That abortion has a side effect of ending the parental obligations of both is not pertinent.
@@histreeonics7770 The parental obligations _only_ exist if a child does. The child is not created at conception, a fertilized egg is. If the female in question wishes to take on the personal responsibilities involved in creating a child from that fertilized egg, it stands to reason that the obligation for support be hers, and not automatically applied to the one who had no choice in the matter of the pregnancy.
@@histreeonics7770 You have no obligation to raise a child. You only have a legal obligation to make sure the child is cared for. If the donor ops to put the child up for adoption and the carrier rejects the adoption proposal it then becomes the females responsibility to care for the child, by themselves. Both parents should be able to opt out direct care of the child. All that’s means is someone has to care for the child, foster care and adoption is the default option. We make a legal requirement that a child be cared for so them the legal precedent for child that is uncared for is to be cared for by the legal entity (the state). You should be under no obligation to the carrier. You only have the obligation to make sure the child is cared for.
@Dave the cowboi . Why do you think that? The base principle for the discussion is that a woman has all the rights with regards to her body (and the use of it). I think everyone should be able to agree on that, and if not the discussion ends there since there's absolutely no good argument for that position. If there's agreement on that part, how can you not agree with Matt that there's no way out of that. (Apart from the hypothetical rape of the man - in that case i would agree that the man can't be held responsible and if cases exists where the man is held responsible the law is wrong, lots of laws around the world is just wrong (in my opinion) but you can still discuss what's right or wrong from a humanistic standpoint.
@@olejorgensen1964 because the argument "when you have sex you have to live with the consequences" seems to not apply for women. women will not say oh im not ready for the pregnancy, they say im not ready for the child. so the pregnancy is not the issue here.
ole jørgensen 1) a female knows the risks of having sex, and she’s aware that she may become pregnant, even with every precaution taken. 2) a man knows the risks of having sex, and understands that pregnancy make occur in the same way. 3) they have sex, and even though they’re both equal, and they both knew about the risks beforehand, the woman now has a “get out of jail free” card and can opt out of parenthood if she wishes, but the man has absolutely no such option. And let’s not pretend that the majority, if even a semi-moderate percentage, of pregnancies are aborted because “a woman doesn’t want a parasite in her body” for a few months. The bigger issue here is that a) she isn’t financially ready for a 20 year commitment b) she isn’t ready to give up her freedom and sacrifice her personal life for 20 years yet, or c) there are unforeseen circumstances that stand in the way of this pregnancy coming to term. None of those have anything to do with a “parasite” in her body, but I’d be willing to get the VAST majority of abortions occur because of one of those 3. And I will say, I believe every woman has the right to abort any pregnancy for any reason before it becomes viable, but to say that a woman is just this naive, innocent kid who didn’t realize the risks is not just insulting and degrading to the female sex, but it’s dishonest to the actual issue at hand. They were BOTH aware of the risks beforehand, and the woman has an automatic way out for any sort of reason she feels necessary, but a man is absolutely stuck. It’s hypocritical, disingenuous and completely regressive to the modern society we’re trying to mold.
@@philorgneopolotin8762 That was a very long way of saying that the woman has a choice and that the man doesn't if she gets pregnant. I agree - and so what.? That's exactly the point, its now the woman's choice, it has to be and there's really nothing to compare this with. They should both have been more careful - but now it her choice and only hers. I really really don't see why that's hypocritical, disingenuous and completely regressive
Not often i disagree with matt, less often i think he's being obtuse. Doesn't want an analogy then whips out a terrible baseball analogy of his own. Not sure if the guy couldn't clarify enough or matt just doesn't want to see it... it is possible to agree on 2 aspects of an issue, then raise a 3rd consideration that has not yet been addressed. Equal rights over pregnancy looks like this: both parties have choice to be involved or not. Each party has to realize the other party's choice affects the burden they would have to carry. Yes, each party's choice has influence over the other. Still not entirely equal options available to both parties, as carrying to term is not a joint decision, and it shouldn't be, but as close as seems possible. Furthermore, to bring the serial extremist example into the discussion as a baseline to determine all male rights; THAT was dishonest.
Have you considered that BOTH parties are responsible for a child that they have conceived? We also grant rights of bodily autonomy to both but it's only applicable to a fertile female(just terms dont fucking flame me over them) since a pregnancy against her will would go against that bodily autonomy. Let's say that under the law she still wants to carry it to term but NOT take care of it... wouldn't she be obligated under the law to pay child support then?? THAT'S what I took away from it. And sure it's not quite fair that the mother could choose for abortion regardless of the fathers wishes. Lets hypothesized that a method of extracting the fetus and carry it to term in a jar existed - then could she be held to the same standard of child support as a father? I dont think so based on that the procedure would be invasive and no one could make her have it instead of a terminating abortion so she could possibly bargain away her responsibility of parenthood in that exchange...
Nope, make a baby raise a baby (or agree to adoption). Taking a risk and then wanting a get out of jail free card when it happens is fucked up. The ability to terminate a pregnancy is NOT about whether or not the mom can bail on their responsibility, it is about body autonomy. The father cannot and does not have the right to force the mother to do something with HER body. That is it. Because the guy is not in the same situation is, to use Matt's term, "tough shit, life's not fair".
@@randolphphillips3104 It's also about bodily autonomy for the male too. Her decision, which of course she gets to make unilaterally, should not result in the forcible enslavement of the male, which is against his bodily autonomy rights. If you think consent to sex =\= consent to parenthood, then this is the only acceptable balance. It's laughable how matt, and others, failed to realize this.
@@randolphphillips3104 "The ability to terminate a pregnancy is NOT about whether or not the mom can bail on their responsibility, it is about body autonomy." Maybe not from a perspective of moral argument, but what about the possibility and actuality of what's unfolded in the real world? You think pregnant women are always and only making the decision based on the body autonomy moral argument?
@@jdsartre9520 WHY they make their decision is their business. THE RIGHT for them to make the decision is body autonomy. Body autonomy is the moral reason that they have the right. Making the choice to have an abortion or not based on body autonomy is a non-sensical argument.
"That's fucking dishonest as hell." We agree Matt. You were not an honest interlocutor in this conversation. You either dishonestly or unknowingly misrepresented Tyler's question, changed standards for evaluating his side/your side, and dismissed his arguments out of hand with no direct refutation. I expect more from you at this point.
Yeah this is where Matt and I depart. Theres a strange inequality here. The argument hes making to Tyler here sounds eerily similar to pro-life arguments. A pro lifer can also say that she knew what the consequences might be going into it and now she is responsible. This is not the case. If women can freely choose between parenthood and nonparenthood after already the fact, so should the man. This is equality.
@@f6y7t5 yeah I can very much picture a pro-life person saying something to the effect of “you can’t have an abortion, you had sex and you knew the risks. You’re trying to have consequence free sex.”. To be clear I’m %100 down with bodily autonomy and a womens right to have an abortion, but Matt being so flippantly dismissive here is pretty distasteful.
@@kevind6723 no. Both parents have obligations to their children because that child has a right to parental support from both parents. The obligation to a child is the consequence of having sex. That obligation does not include the obligation to provide access to your internal organs for either parent. Any parent can refuse to donate and there is no crime. The prolifer is saying the consequence of having sex obligated is an obligation to a fetus in ways that no parent is obligated, and what’s more, to create an obligation to the fetus ONLY for the woman. They don’t argue that a man is required to provide food or medical care to his fetus through the woman, nor that he be required to donate blood to her to keep her alive should she need a transfusion (which happens occasionally) to biologically support to his fetus. That’s the nuance you are missing, mate
@@johnlewis9266 I understand the nuance you’re describing. I implied the argument is similar, never once did I say this is the exact same argument that pro-life people use. Furthermore, I think you missed the point of my comment entirely, which is ironic seeing as how you say I’m missing some kind of nuance here. The point of my comment wasn’t about what the host said, but more so the utter unwillingness to engage in a conversation. They basically belittled dude, just told him “tough shit”, and basically refused to engage in any conversation. To me caller seemed genuine in trying to figure this issue out, and they treated him like shit and were insanely condescending.
@@kevind6723 they gave him ample opportunity to make a case for why he isn’t culpable in making someone pregnant when he knew about the risks of the secondary outcome. He refused to make an argument for why he isn’t culpable, or how he could possibly be a victim when it was his actions that caused the entire thing. Instead he kept coming back to why it wasn’t fair that he doesn’t have the opportunity to avoid consequences for his actions. That’s nothing more than a whine, and the host was right to tell him “tough shit”. When someone is refusing to engage the issue, there is no reason not to point that out.
Citation please. The sources I was able to find showed us 170 or better counting from worst to best. Also, not sure how you can turn less then 6 per 1000 live births is an indictment of western medicine. (For comparison, infant mortality in the 1950's was around 40%.)
@@randolphphillips3104 the USA is in fact 33 in the world. The infant mortality rate has come down slower than other countries. In 1960 it was 10/1000, in 2019 it was 5.8/1000, Japan is the best 1.8/1000, the average is 3.4/1000, 71% better than USA.
God, I hate Matt when he's like this. The guy has a slightly confused, but reasonable question. He's polite, he's articulate. FFS let him finish his thought before snapping at him mid-sentence? Or how hard would it be to say something like "Look, in an ideal world the woman would ask the guy what he thinks and at least take that into consideration. Of course, when push comes to shove, you don't really have a right to anything"
Matt has simply adopted a straightforward philosophy: "Thou Shalt Not Suffer The Stupid To Live, Nor Give Quarter To Same". We live in a world where 'stupidity' and/or 'stupidness' have been give a platform and allowed to freely blossom for FAR too long. Matt has simply decided that he's had enough of that tribe, and will give them as little oxygen as possible. To do otherwise is just a waste of time. 100% of the time.
@@CaptainCanuck63 I couldn't disagree more. The format of this show is a dialog. Matt gives good enough lectures but this isn't one. Now I agree that you don't have to let every lunatic ramble on for half an hour. But again: This guy is polite and articulate. For fucking sake let him articulate his thoughts and then respectfully show him where you disagree. He did absolutely nothing to warrant this kind of behavior on Matt's side. And frankly, this kind of egotistic outbreaks is why I stopped watching Matt altogether. (Not that he cares)
@@Ezechielpitau Because this isn't a platform for folks to preach and proselytize and waste the audience's time. He's dealt with these arguments before, we have as well. So far, he's been correct in his interruptions so as to clarify and straighten out what's going on. They have limited time and have other callers to talk. If people don't have the thick skin to handle that. They shouldn't be calling in to begin with and he has been nice to people who have been having trouble articulating their points, and let them go gently as a result. What I as others like Matt don't like, is something called "tone policing".
@@Ezechielpitau Nothing totally wrong in YOUR comment thread. But there's alot of hate/trolling from the pro-life groups posing as pro-choice in taking his words out of context, bitching about his "tone" when it's somehting he's done for a long time, but for some reason isn't given quarter to this one when it's just like every other dumb caller coming on. It's something I can't stand when it comes to dishonest bullshit to push their preferred narrative when they can't make a solid case for their position.
1st time I've ever just straight up disagreed with Matt on something. Idc if the woman keeps the child or aborts the child for whatever reason she wants to hell she could flip a coin and be like heads or tails. And Idc if the man wants to be involved in any capacity or not. But both should be able to make the call. The only discrepancy comes in is if the woman doesn't want and the man does and at that point and only that point is it tough shit for the man. Other than that both parties should have the right to opt out individually.
@@jakethewolfie119 I agree, But that's a separate issue as to whether or not the man should be required to be a parent or provide support in any way shape or form. Here are a few scenarios. 1) Both parties agree to have a child both parties bear responsibility. 2)Both parties Agree not to have a child, neither party bears responsibility 3) Only one Party agrees to have a child, only that party is required to bear responsibility. Neither party should be able to force responsibilities onto the other without their consent.
You basically wrote what I wanted to. I very rarely disagree with Matt, but I do as well in this case. Around 7:10 and 10:24, he even goes as far as just about saying “Just don’t have sex.” I’m quite sure that even he doesn’t agree with that himself, that’s just utter nonsense. It’s the equivalent of promoting abstinence in sex education, which is known to be completely ridiculous and ineffective. If you have sex while using contraceptives, you make it quite clear from the outset that you do not want to become a parent. Of course, if a pregnancy results from having sex, it’s totally up to the woman to decide what to do with that pregnancy. But it should be up to the man as well as up to the woman to opt out of parenthood. Say the woman doesn’t want to abort the pregnancy, but she does not want to raise the kid, then she can give up the child for adoption. The caller is just pointing out that this asymmetry is a problem, and I agree. I don’t even know whether there is a good way to fix is, but Matt’s refusal to acknowledge this, or even try to get the guy’s argument, is just having a bad conversation.
@@DaanVreeswijk yeah I want to call in and talk about this. I've been recently thinking of a way to present the argument that leaves no room to shift it towards abortion and does not include gender. Once I figure that out I'll probably do it.
Really off base with the arguments from Matt. I know he likely won't read this, but as many have posted, he can't seem to actually see the argument being raised by Tyler. Also, as Jim mentioned about inconsequential sex. Well the woman has the choice of inconsequential sex. So Tyler's point stands. Females have it, men don't, therefore unequal.
@Michele D it was the point raised by Jim, the fact they have the right to terminate if they don't want a child, but the man doesn't have the right to abandon parental liability if he didn't want the child. I believe I misquoted in hindsight though, as Jim actually said Non-consequential, rather than inconsequential. Basically the female can go around having as much sex as they want, and can terminate as much as they want, but the male doesn't have that privilege. For clarity I don't care what people do with their bodies, I do just find the position unbalanced in position to rights and freedoms.
@Michele D a woman can abort, there arent any real consequences she can literally not have a baby, a man can have sex..annnd nope he has no control over getting a baby as a woman there is no consequence except getting an abortion ooooooo wish men had that option
@@Xarai a man can control his genetic material. He can choose to not have sex or he can have a vasectomy. These can even be done of the type that have a high likelihood of reversal. If he is uncertain. That's taking responsibility for his reproductive rights. Maybe Matt put it inelegantly however he didn't put it incorrectly.
Karl-benny johansson tf are you talking about? The father is literally doing the same thing, he’s transferring responsibility onto the mother who wants it. The mom had 50% responsibility before, and now she can have 100%. Idk what argument you’re even trying to make
I like how Matt basically called Tyler a bad person and a deadbeat if he had consentual sex and got the female pregnant and he didn't want the child. All the caller was saying is that it's not fair that he has to take care of a child he didn't want because the female wants it. It takes two people to create a child, why is no one concerned about the males reproductive rights? I don't think Matt would say that if a woman got pregnant and decided she didn't want the baby even if the man did, he'd call her a deadbeat mom and say she's trying to have consequence free sex, but the man is?
@Andrew Fairfax I'm a man and agree with their take on what Matt said. In essence, Matt not only acknowledged that women have a right that men don't, but that he agrees with it being that way. Maybe it's YOU who are missing the point and doubling down by being pointlessly insulting?
@Andrew Fairfax you're being unreasonably rude. I think what they're trying to say is that if a man has sex with a woman, with a condom or some other form of birth control, but the woman still gets pregnant, the woman should have the choice whether to abort or not. However, if a man wants the woman to abort but she doesn't, he should have the right to opt out. If the woman is allowed to kill it, maybe the man should be able to abandon it
If a woman can decide if she wants to be a parent, a man should be able to as well. This guy sucks at arguing his point. Matt kept coming back to "you're trying to have consequence free sex" what consequence does a woman pay when she decides against being a parent?
Well, the woman does have more potential consequences (the pregnancy), but she also decides what the consequences for her _and_ in part the consequences for the potential father might be. It's the last bit I, and probably the caller, have a problem with...
@Freed1 CAN be. You are making the same argument (what if he's broke) that Matt so thoroughly dismissed as dishonest. The only thing on your list that is applicable to most situations is the financial aspect. If you're comparing a $500 abortion to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting a child for 18 years I don't think you're making a good argument.
@@thetoddperspective I think we just have to acknowledge that perhaps, snowflake, life isn’t fair. Unfortunately there are differences in biology that make the circumstances different for men and women. I think that the current system (not specific abortion laws just the fact that in general it is legal) is best unless you can provide an alternative idea. Women should not be forced to carry a child for various reasons but once that child is here, he/she is owed support of some kind from both parents. It is not fair. But this isn’t an abstract philosophical question this is a real world scenario and laws are utilitarian (in theory at least). What is your genius idea?
@@amandamcgovern5744 My first idea is to not insult someone who is trying to have a conversation about a contentious and complicated topic. Since my original comment is garnering quite a response let me make my position clear. I am pro choice. I also believe that choice is totally up to the person carrying the pregnancy. Heck, I'm even ok with men not even getting a vote on abortion issues, I am fine with women working those issues out amongst themselves. Having said that, if true equality is the goal, then it wouldn't be just one of the sexes who has to "just deal with it" I don't have a perfect answer, I don't think there is one. No I don't want children to not be provided for. I personally think deadbeat parents are pieces of sh*t. Women want 100% bodily autonomy. If that same standard is extended to men then the money produced by the labor of their body is theirs, their choice. No, it's not perfect. I'm not even arguing that it is preferable. But it is closer to equality than the current system.
Matt, pls. The solution is for government to pay child support to all mothers for each child they have (along with schools, healthcare, and offering the out of abortion or adoption), not force all men to be limited to "abstinence or financial entrapment" which is a milder version of the theistic anti-choice argument.
Addendum: I did not expect to hear Matt sincerely argue "if you don't want the consequences, don't have sex" and "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and all these other basically abstinence-only arguments directed at "sperm doners" while at the same time throwing in the caveat that actual sperm bank doners are off the hook from all of this.
@@venga3 I didn't say you pay, I said government pays, just like it pays for schools, roads, streetlights... My children are not your children, but we are all part of the same society and as a society we make certain investments for the wellbeing of all members of our society.
Why should the taxpayer pay for their negligent insemination? Good god. The man has options OTHER than abstinence. It’s called not having sex with someone with a uterus, or not having sex in a vagina, or not having sex with someone who is fertile, or even simpler, putting on a f’cking condom and not ejaculating into a vagina. I get that as a society, we pay taxes that fund programs for children such as public school, but there is NO reason why a man’s culpability for his negligence should mean he doesn’t have to be financially responsible AT ALL.
@@seleuf Matt gave at least 10 other options other than abstinence that men have. How hard is it to roll on a condom? I assume they developed the sufficient fine motor skill of the pincher grab, yes? How hard is it to wear a condom AND to pull out prior to ejaculation? I see male porn stars can manage to do this just fine since most of them pull out and ejaculate elsewhere on her body. My god. You seem to be arguing that a man HAS to inseminate a woman in order to have sex with her which is absurd. He doesn’t. He can have sex all day every day and nary a pregnancy will result if he doesn’t inseminate.
“If the woman can abort it (with the man having no say), then the man should at least be able to abandon it”. -Dave Chappelle (not my sentiment, but that’s what he’s trying to say).
Do men understand there is literally nothing stopping them from practicing birth control? It is your ejaculation that causes the pregnancy. If you don't ejaculate inside of her, there would be no abortions or unwanted pregnancies.Basic biology, men are to blame for 100% of unwanted pregnancies. It really is that simple so hearing men discuss abortion and single mothers is mind boggling. You want to the pleasure of sex without any of the responsiblity or the accountiblity......geeze.......truly disturbing.
@@yavenay Nah... By that logic, If the woman practices abstinance or doesn't engage in condomless sex, there would be no baby either. Both are responsible for protection.
Yeah, I've been noticing this as time has progressed. Nowadays even when I agree with him I find him insufferable. Its saddening because Matt was my favorite host for a decade, but I can't really stomach watching him now
I think he's just been doing this too long. Even in debates about religion and atheism, he used to take the time to have a proper discussion, now he just seems angry and dismissive all the time, which I can understand if he's heard the exact same bullshit on the show for so long, but it doesn't paint him in a good light.
Arrogant?? Imagine over the course of two decades getting calls from the most ignorant people in the world. Not to mention going over the same conversation over 100 times on each stand point and defense against religion and sort are views. Callused sure, arrogance absolutely not. This man has fought for rationale thinking for a very long time and has realIed that if you give an inch in this ignorant world that they will try and say you’re weak same with viewers. Look at you saying arrogance yet when he’s nice people say he’s soft. The ignorance the world is quick to label someone negatively is the problem so I would take a time out if I were you really think and don’t impulsively judge and make a deduction that’s more detailed instead of jumping to “arrogance” when you haven’t taken in any other variables.
4m: Awkward conversation. Already, the caller is being misunderstood at several points. Initial impressions (which i may edit after finishing the video) was the desire to be able to opt out of being a parent as a result of sex, just like the the carrying partner can by abortion/adoption. The hosts gave a 'tough shit' attitude to Tyler that wouldn't be shown to the carrying-partner side. Gonna keep watching, but it's frustrating when one side gives that impression that they don't want to listen. Edit1, 11m: Matt is definitely not listening to the caller. The caller was respectful and listened attentively in the first half, yet Matt is speaking down to Tyler about a ton of options he has, yet doesn't even acknowledge that someone who doesn't want a pregnancy outcome and does everything right to prevent it the pregnancy happens is *stuck* into parenting if they're a male but not if they're a female (if i stick to binary for simplicity.). Definitely a low point of Matt's argumentation. Edit2, 15m: Matt finally brought up a reasonable counter with the 'that's more unfair to the female side' if the male withdraws, she might abord due to the financial or other perceived pressures... 14 minutes in... and frankly if the pregnant person wants to carry the child, then they still can. If they can only do it by forcing the other party to pay child support, then we should also be reprimanding the mother/host individual just as much due to financials... I'm still frustrated with Matt's argumentation here. The argument that dudes going around having sex wantonly is a worse world is normally true, except it's not accurate to the situation they talked about. What about when women want sex wantonly? Edit3: Finished video, only adding because of final comments. I'm not a 'dude-bro' (mtf/nb) and it's insulting to think the only people who would take this stance are men. My counter? Matt is against sex shaming and slut shaming, so why is he shaming men for wanting more sex?
I totally agree with that. I agree with a woman being able to choose...even if the man wants to keep the kid (as much as that seems unfair to me). But, if a man wants to "choose to have an abortion" (re: not keep the child), tough shit? .. It SHOULD be a time limit during pregnancy...just like when the limit is to terminate. Personally, I put that at 9 weeks, but that's me. So, going with that, a man SHOULD be able to say "Ok, I don't want to... or I cant support a child".
@John Wood yes, but i'm understanding this call as a matter of general principle and discerning what the more equitable position should be, not on what is legal.
I unsubscribed from the channel from this convo. I agree that we can't have men be able to instantly drop out of a pregnant woman due to his actions, but the situation we realistically are talking about here is: man and woman have safe sex (condom + birth control) and a pregnancy is a result. Despite the fact that both parties acted as if they did not want a child, yet the female has 100% control over the situation is just not fair. If you have explicitly stated as a man that you do not want children (thats why the parties are using contraception) and the woman has told you she is on the pill and will take spermicide, the fact that the woman can also lie about both things AND not be held responsible for those lies since that can never be proven (it would be heresay) is just simply not a good thing. This only reinforces women to trap men with a child and make pay child support if he doesn't want it. The man is completely at the mercy of the woman. The fact this is possible only reinforces scummy behavior and makes men not want to have sex. In general, all Matt has done is excuse the injustice of our biased courts and family courts. However, I can see alot of heated debate and conversation from such a hot topic. Maybe I'm missing something though or I'm just not covering my points as well as I could.
@@plumfun6750 Just finished the video (comment was reupdated to reflect) and i'm severely annoyed at how they both suggested there's no escape from consequences of being a parent... so they're fine with abortion (which I am as well) but they're not fine with absolving responsibility of being a parent (which also comes with abortion de facto)... Very annoying. The fact that a woman (to keep terms simple) can choose to carry to term without any say of the donor is her right, but to hold that over the partner for funds has already *been* making the world a worse one. I said in my main comment but i'll repeat, if she'd only have the child because she'd have child support, imo that's too bad. Pregnancy changes the body permanently? that's the choice. In the words of the hosts, "Tough shit."
@Jack M all I really got from this convo on matts side was: well if a woman pokes holes in your condom, sperm jacks your sperm from your used condom, lies about her contraception, or lies about her willing to get an abortion if she gets pregnant even if they practice safe sex, well I guess have fun with those child payments or never ever have sex ever! :P
Matt, YOU'RE the dudebro here. You're the one with the anti-choice, anti-freedom sentiment. Once a child is born, yes, both parents have an obligation to support the child. That is not what is being discussed here. If he makes it clear /during/ pregnancy he wants out, he should have every right to do so. She is making the conscious decision to raise that child as a single parent.
What I said was absolutely true. I don't understand how you missed the point. You're 8 months late and I'm not going to explain basic gender equality to you.
@@countessroadkill9599 Steve Doud doesn't really understand his own arguments. "If I pull the trigger of a loaded gun aimed at a target knowing what would happen, did I consent to shoot that target or was the target shot without my consent?" He compares a woman to a mindless target who is incapable of consent. He doesn't think very highly of women, it seems.
"Sex is never consent to parenthood' only took 6 minutes to get to "if you have sex you consent to parenthood (but only if you supplied the sperm cells)." I don't know if there is a realistic remedy for the disparity in rights that the caller is talking about, but Jim and Matt seem disingenuous here. If a person gets pregnant and doesn't want to be a parent, she can spend $1,000 (the high end for the cost of an abortion according to Planned Parenthood) and not become a parent. If a person impregnates someone else, he can... suck it up and pay child support for 18 years.
"I believe that no one should be diabolised for wanting to opt out of parenthood, because you can't force someone to carry a child and raise it just because they had sex. Saying to someone "Well you had sex, just suck it up buttercup, what are you a [insert insult here] ? Just raise that child and shut the fuck up" is wrong and immoral. You can't force someone to have a child they don't want, and you shouldn't consider them filth if they opt out. Oh and by the way i believe that you should be diabolised for wanting to opt out of parenthood, because you should be forced to take your responsibilites and to raise a child just because you had sex. Saying to someone "Well you had sex, just suck it up buttercup, what are you a [insert insult here] ? Just raise that child and shut the fuck up" is right and justified. You had sex, you're having a child, you're a parent, suck it up or i'll consider you like filth." Basically that for 21mn, with "So you're saying that women shouldn't have the right to abort you dudebro piece of shit" peppered here and there even though that wasn't the point.
@david brokaw the problem lies at whos is caring the fetus, which in this case, is the female. So, rights are not equal for both potential parents. Biology gives that right to the woman. And you are out of luck. Period.
@@MrThemaskedavenger I'm comparing the options for a person who doesn't want to become a parent. Women have a right to opt out of parenthood, and I support that right absolutely. Men do not have that right unless the woman allows it (and if you need someone's permission to have a right, you don't have a right). That's all I'm saying. As I stated above, I don't even know if there IS a solution to this problem, but I don't think telling all men to be abstinent until the day they are ready to be a dad is realistic, and we sure as hell aren't telling women that.
I usually agree with Matt on the vast majority of issues. Not here though. Matt: "If you are not in the position to assume the risk and financial responsibility to have a child, you shouldn't be fucking." Seriously? That is the same thing that religious nut jobs have been telling us women our entire lives. As a woman I think that both women and men should be able to opt in or out on a pregnancy. The woman since it is her body, her choice. But she should have the obligation to inform the man in a timely manner and he should have a choice to opt out in a timely manner as well, before her time to make the choice about abortion runs out. That way she can take into account his willingness or unwillingness to provide support. Matt says having sex is not consent to having a baby or being a parent. It should go both ways. When Mat says don't have sex or don't have sex with someone that is fertile to a man, that is no different than someone telling a woman to keep her legs closed or don't have sex with a fertile man. If an argument said to a woman sounds ridiculous, the same thing said to a man sounds just as ridiculous. Though, as I mentioned, the laws need to make it fair. As in she is obligated to inform the guy or make a reasonable effort to locate the guy, and he would need to make a timely decision to opt out right away. Otherwise it would not be fair if the guy had a chance to tell her he will provide support and then withdraw at a later time. It may be difficult to codify into law, but we should strive for equality. As far as the man not supporting financially influencing the woman's decision, of course it should inform her decision. It shouldn't be have the baby and then figure things out, both parties should make their choices known early on before the baby is far enough along. If the woman chooses to go along with the pregnancy because for some reason it is the safer option for her, she can still choose to sign her rights away, like the guy did. But at least she'll know his position before she has to make a choice about whether to abort or not. If the guy is chided for having sex while not financially able to afford a baby, shouldn't the woman be chided for having sex while not able to financially afford the baby? Huge double standard there. Taking away the bodily autonomy part, of course the woman has 100% to decide about her body, as it concerns to the financial part, it should be equal rights for both parties at that point. As I said, the woman can give birth and sign her rights away, the man should be able to do the same.
So far i haven't really stumbled into any topic on wich i actually disagree with Matt. This one was basicly the first exception, and you just prefectly formulated how and why, thanks.
Very succinctly put. I think the important thing here is to encourage a situation where a potential child is considered as such, and not considered to be a _punishment._ Turning a child into a punishment is just asking for a toxic family environment. My idea on the situation would be to make it an opt-in, rather than an opt-out. Any time during (or even before) pregnancy, both parties can opt-in to parenthood and take on the legal responsibilities. If however this doesn't happen, then the woman in question will always have a situation where they can plan on whether they can raise a child on their own, or if they'd rather it be done with both parties present. This is all the better as it allows one to really consider what the best decision is ahead of time, rather than having that 'ticking clock' of pregnancy and wondering part-way through whether the other party might opt-out or not. If one knows going into pregnancy whether they'll be a single parent or partners, that's all the more time to make sure that preparations are all made and set up as they should be to ensure that the child can grow up in a good environment, and not, as mentioned before, grow up knowing that they're a punishment for someone else.
I’m a gay man so I shouldn’t even feel concerned about this. Still, what Matt was saying was making me feel uncomfortable, precisely because at some point I closed my eyes and thought “it would be a massive bs to say this to a woman : tough shit, you shouldn’t be fucking then” how is that any different from the “pro-life” side’s discourse ? We all have rights. Women have 100% the rights over their bodies and only they can decide to carry or not a pregnancy. This is completely different to paternal rights and obligations. Unlike with the pregnancy, both parties are in equal grounding here and no one nor the other can force parenthood upon one of them. Happy to read that such an amazing comment came from a woman noticing the same thing I noticed
I was thinking all of this and you literally nailed every single point for me. Thank you. I was a little worried the comment section would miss this hypocrisy. I too normal agree w Matt. But he has whiffed on this big time. Sometimes hes too busy virtue signaling and smelling his own farts these days to see the obvious. I think he does slightly the same when it comes to Islam as well.
This is such a difficult video to watch and it is proof for why it's never a good idea to idolise anyone. We are ALL prone to stupid arguments. I literally, right before this video, JUST watched the video where Matt directly argued against the point he is making when a lady called in to argue the case for liability and taking responsibility for a pregnancy!! Make it make sense Matt!
Matt can speak for me on just about any issue. This one is the exception. That doesn't mean I idolize him, it just means we hold a lot of the same positions.
Matt has said a lot of stupid shit, especially when it comes to atheism/agnosticism but stupid fan boys blindly defend him regardless of the obvious stupid.
@Andrew Fairfax my god, you’re popping up everywhere with your bullshit. It’s boring. I’m embarrassed for you. Move on, and live your life. This commenting lark isn’t for you.
Did Matt just argue against abortion? I'm confused here. Women can have consequence free sex by opting to have an abortion, but men can't have consequence free sex and are forced into parenthood. Where's the equality in that? Women are not forced into becoming a parent and be financially responsible for the pregnancy of consensual sex, but men are?
Yeah that’s really weird. He thinks doesn’t think fetuses should have more rights than women, but women should have more rights than men? This one seemed super weird to me. I literally never disagree with Matt this much, but he was really off-base in this one
"Women can have consequence free sex by opting to have an abortion". In what world is that "consequence free sex" ? Having an abortion isn't a picnic in the park and carries potential medical/physiological risks. It's not like flicking a light switch to the "off" position. If you had to have someone scrape the inside of your dick with a curette and then bleed out of it for days afterwards, and/or face wacko protesters as you walked in to have the procedure, you might be a little less cavalier about your views.
@@barbarasmith2693 even pregnancy isn't as serious a final result as unwanted fatherhood......18 years of mandatory (or jail) support and a legal system that says she gets main custody by default........nothing is consequence free not even breathing.....however we could shore up the differences a bit by giving men some choice as long as she has one too
Matt is way too quick to call people dishonest. This guy was nothing but respectful to you. He just has a different opinion than you. And he brought up great points that you simply dismissed out of hand. Matt lets his emotions get the better of him way too much.
Like the hundreds of people who disagree with Matt, I also disagree here. As a woman if I have the right to abort my baby, then I have to allow the man to give up his fatherly rights to be a father to my child. If the government is giving me the gift of allowing me to opt out of motherhood, then I will give the man the gift of opting out of fatherhood. Pay it forward!
This is the first time I've ever agreed with the caller. It should be easier for men to "financially abort" their right to be a parent. Treating sex as a crime, and punishing men financially and physically, shouldn't be the response to a situation where a man isn't ready and willing to be a parent.
The man should have *no choice* to force the woman to either carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it. AND The woman should have *no choice* to force the man to either pay for childcare or not. BECAUSE Consent to *Sex* IS NOT Consent to *Parenthood.* This Standard should go both ways. Matt was clearly being hypocritical here.
Matt in this one I feel is being very unreasonable. As a woman who has a lot of discussions about bodily autonomy i feel that the color is bring up a very fair point. When it comes to pregnancy it is a completely different ballpark that In many cases ignore the woman's needs, but also, the question of whether or not a man should be able to opt out of parenthood even before the child is born should be left up to the man and not the pregnant person, the pregnant person can choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy, can choose to continue being a parent, why can't the man? At that point, especially before birth, a man should be able to choose parenthood or naw, and government assistance should be given in the case of a Single parent
@Bloviator Magnus Except men do go to jail for not paying child support because they owe the State (who determines how the money is distributed after they take their cut), not the mother/child. If they fail to pay, get behind on payments, or don’t pay enough, they go to jail. They can even have their passport and license revoked/ suspended until they catch up.
@Steve Doud Then I would think that you should have a problem with Matt's take on this. Because as far as I can tell it is a double standard... Allow me to elaborate, If a woman consenting to sex is not consenting to have a child, why is it that a man who is just consenting to have sex IS ALSO consenting to have a child? Why can only the woman consent to just the sex and not the child, but the man has to consent to both? If a woman can say yes to sex while also saying no to a child...then a man should also have the same choice. Now of course the woman ultimately gets to decide if she carries the child to term, but why then does her choice overrule the man's choice?
@Steve Doud You did not address my point at all. Not only that but when a man climaxes there is no "choice" in if he ejaculates or not so I fail to see your point. Also, I am fairly certain that in my previous comment I made it clear that I already agree that a woman has the choice to carry the child or to not carry the child so you restating that is pointless.
@Steve Doud The number of assumptions and pretentiousness you managed to fit in this reply is commendable. I think I am quite done exchanging comments with you, as you are showing quite clearly that you will not even attempt to show me even a modicum of respect.
Nope. Sex is NOT consent to parenthood. Matt never said it was. In fact, he specifically said it wasn't. Go back to 1:53 Sex is a conscious choice to engage in activity that may result in the conception of a fetus. What happens AFTER the conception is that ONLY ONE of the parties who engaged in said activity will be faced with the biological burden of carrying the fetus. That is the individual who gets to make the choice as they would be the person to incur the most physiological risk in continuing the pregnancy.
@@barbarasmith2693 to be more precise, for a man, sex is automatic consent to the risk of an 18year obligation that she can still opt out of......she should have a choice, man up of it happens....that is more like what matt said....as for me, as long as she has a choice I should also....that said, for me "her" choice is always "get away from me you fat creep" so in my case now the question is moot
Barbara Smith - I get that, but what actually makes a physiological risk so much more important than a financial one that a financial one is so unimportant we can just ignore it entirely and callously? I understand that the physical risks for females are horrific and I’m not trying to say we should stop treating them as horrific. But I can imagine a scenario where child support payments would keep a male trapped where he is, unable to do what he wants to with his own life, for at least 18 years. Is that not worth considering? If that’s all that women had to worry about instead of the added physical risks, I’d still fiercely defend their rights to abortion. And the counter arguments to Tyler that go something like “just deal with the consequences, dipshit” are the exact same as anti-choice arguments. I don’t understand how that argument doesn’t argue against abortion. Like “you knew getting pregnant was a risk when you had sex. You decided to anyways, and now you’re a parent. Too bad you don’t want your body mangled by it. Just deal with the consequences, dipshit” . The only possible difference would be if you decided to say that pregnancy wasn’t a consequence of sex, but I hope no one is stupid enough to do that
@@bariumselenided5152 the body risk argument is also absolute bullshit as serious complications are about 1% chance, and almost always treatable with low to no lasting affects. Don't use the low odds to argue the common. Although all the pro choice people (ironic as hell) are trying to.
75ur15 - If you’re referring to my “too bad you don’t want your body mangled” line, that’s more about perception than anything. Pregnancy carried to term does have long term affects, and they aren’t desirable. It depends on the person, however, if they are enough to call one “mangled” or not. I just went for shock value and an extreme case, to make the post sound a little more interesting. If it bothers you that much I can edit it, I didn’t want it to get in the way of understanding
I usually agree with Matt, but damn, it really feels like he missed the mark. He agrees that a woman should have full day in what happens with the pregnancy, and I agree with that. However, he thinks men shouldn't have a choice in what happens after? Like, how is forcing a man to pay child support fair if the woman is the only one who gets to decide what happens to the child?
I’ve been disagreeing with matt’s approach of handling theist callers (being an atheist myself who almost 100% of the time disagrees with those callers) and all I see is people mocking the theist. Guess it’s different when you have a horse in the race.
@@jcnot9712 it's something you see everywhere. People will attack the opposition rather than start a productive discussion unfortunately. Same happens with theists mocking atheists (Atheist here), left with the right or more common today, xbox vs ps, I wish people would stop
@@sixapk9664 I meant to say I’m atheist (already edited). And yea, I guess that true nature is revealed at moments like this. In my opinion, they should’ve been calling out matt whenever he made a bad argument against a religious person, because there are plenty of those clips. The less of those instances of yelling at a christian we have, the easier it will be for some of those people to even consider a secular model.
@@jcnot9712 Precisely! Matt is arrogant and seems to think his "opinion" is fact. I am an atheist also and it disgusts me to hear Matt talk the Christians. Matt down right disrespects them and almost always rudely hangs up on them when the Christian disagrees with what he is saying. Matt just acts tought on the phone.
To be honest, I'm disagreeing more with his style than his opinion. I think it's a fair discussion and there are probably valid points for both sides. But there's just ZERO reason to snap at the guy like that mid-question like he's an imbecile
Matt being dishonest here, lot of men are paying for a child a woman choose to have, the conversation here should be, if a woman decides ti keep a baby by herself then she will have full responsibility looking after the child including financially.
@@muzcleheadz4997 there is risk only because laws discriminate against men, if i have a sex with a wiman then by herself without me agreeing to it want to gi ahead with pregnancy, then its her fucking responsibility.
This is literally the only video I have ever "disliked". Usually, I just ignore and move on. Here's the test Matt: If you say "tough shit" to one side, but CAN'T say it to the other, then it ISN'T equality.
You clearly do not understand the differences here. A biological male who can make someone pregnant MUST decide before the act whether he is willing to accept the possibilities of the act. A woman ALSO must decide that BUT as it is her body wherein the foetus resides, and she is not a vessel, nor are her rights suddenly removed, she will always get to make the right choice for HER. If you are male, and able to impregnate someone, your choice MUST happen prior to you making someone pregnant. If you don't choose/act wisely in line with your personal goals of not having a child, you have given up your choice as to what the impregnated person will do. It is their body.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 You clearly missed the point in this debate. Where did anyone mentioned this in their comments? No one is denying woman anything. It is just an open debate about male parental rights or lack of. But hey lets get all Matt on everyone because this can't be debated as this is canon?
@@ThatWriterWriter1 You act like the woman had no choice in having sex... if both consent to sex but not a baby then the decision was made before hand... her mood when she realizes she is pregnant shouldnt break her free from responsibility. Do you honestly think the man's body isnt being taxed while he slaves away to pay child support and alimony? Men even get locked up because paying both is often physically impossible.
@Steve Doud yeah. Your reply was just to dumb to engage in. Now am more interested in how your going to save your dignity :) my first post clearly explain why am fed up with Matt. And I used to think he was great at debating.
@Steve Doud first of i watched it 8 months ago, and am not watching it again just to correct you. If am not mistaken he cuts out the man completely and argues like a 10year old. Now go back to your cave.
I almost always agree with matt but we both go into sex understanding that a child is possible but only one of us has a choice to not be a parent if they so choose , while I agree i cant make a woman abort a fetus I should have the right to relinquish my parental rights without the womans signature.
Let's take a poll. If Matt addresses this in today's show, who here thinks he'll double down and call everyone who disagrees with him a stupid dudebro?
I'm thinking a double down, but an admission of error would be preferred. The ad hominem attack was bad enough, but I like to see Matt address what appears to be special pleading. He'd never say the same things to a woman.
This may be the worst look I’ve heard from you guys. I feel like you weren’t listening and then started using these wild arguments to argue against a phantom. The caller seems to be calm precise and honest about what he thinks. He event tried to establish common ground and you were ready to turn up about it. I’d rewatch this one if i were you
I think Matt kinda missed his point to a extent. The guy was trying to point out that if a person chooses to keep the baby, the other should have the right to walk away and have nothing to do with it. This includes child support payments. Which I agree with. I feel like Matt reacted fairly emotionally and wasn't taking the time to actually see the point. There should always be an opt out for either parents. One isn't an incubator for your sperm and the other is not your bank account or your child's bank account.
@Steve Doud again, my point still stands. If someone can abort the fetus (a right I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT), then their partner who got them pregnant should be allowed to step back and relinquish responsibility. There are more than enough cases that show that someone doesn't need to cum to impregnate someone, and the fact that birth control is not 100% effective. Thusly, their should be an out for BOTH parties.
Especially when it comes to gynocentrism. He's full-on blue-pilled and refuses to see any other perspective. He claims to care about believing as many true things as possible. But NOT when it comes to this topic.
@Steve Doud, I haven’t even read past the first sentence of your conversation with Nero. Our conversation started with me asking you a question. I don’t want to seem aggressive, but you seem to keep deflecting. I’ve asked about being cordial, and you keep bringing up accuracy
@Tiberiu Farcas ya kno I actually thought about this for a wile thinking of how I could argue but the women gets 2 chances to opt out abortion and adoption and the guy gets no choice what so ever I can see how that's fucked and I almost said but that's biology which we arnt slaves too any longer so that didnt really work but ur last line about if she wants to keep the child that's her choice and responsiblity. Its almost as bad as forcing a women to stay pregnant they are prolly not equal but 18 years of hard earned money or face jail seems as bad as 9 months pregnant but as a guy I wouldn't really know that, it's not as easy as I first thought bodily autonomy is everything it's why I support abortion and I just don't kno if that is equal to financial autonomy so I'll admit I'm on the fence now
Exactomondo ; and I would argue that if both parties agree to sex and not be parents, and she changes her mind for whatever the reason after the fact..... he should absolutely have that right. We shouldn't he?? She does. She can go for an abortion or choose to have the kid. In other words, she can decide on a mere whim that all of a sudden she wants to be parent(even after she told him she didn't). To my knowledge ; in most cases ; if she decides she wants to be a parent, he's still on the hook for child support even if he still doesn't wanna be a father ; just like he said from the very beginning before they even had sex. I agree with Matt that it's unfair ; but usually when something is unfair we do everything in our power as a society to address the situation to try and make it more fair ; but here Matt sounds like he's perfectly content with this blatant unfairness with regards to human male reproductive rights. For what good reason should she have the right to choose to be a parent ; but the guy shouldn't? And here I thought Matt cared about maximizing the levels of fairness in society ; maybe he doesn't care as much as I initially gave him credit for.
@@cainbradford1587 Muh bad. Meant no harm. Guess sometimes these conversations can get a little heated as evidenced by Matt ; but he really wasn't being particularly charitable to the caller on this issue.
I'm of the opinion that either parent should have the right to give up parental rights and responsibilities. The reason I think we don't allow people to do that is probably because in this country we are opposed to social supports. When I got pregnant, I offered that option to the father so he wouldn't have to pay child support because he made it clear he was furious about the financial burden. Mothers should have the same right as well to walk away and give the father full custody. However, I also recognize that without the social support that other countries have, this would likely lead to a decreased quality of life for the child. So it's a pretty sticky situation.
@@sanc6284 I completely agree! The people who are most outspoken about criminalizing abortion are also the ones who are most firmly opposed to social supports for children. To me, that's what gives away that it has nothing to do with children and everything to do with controlling women.
@@saje239 not necessarily, it seems mostly about religion in those cases, don't kill, im just better than everyone......keep you dirty hand away from me you aren't on my level omg (possible reasoning not my opinion)
@@75ur15 Evangelical Christianity seeks to control women. They have specific beliefs about the role of women in society. So even though it's religious, it's still seeking to control women.
This was less about reproductive rights than it was about reproductive responsibilities. It seems to me the scenario Tyler had in mind was both adults consenting to something like casual sex where neither of them are intending for a child, things get too careless or a protection method malfunctions, the woman gets pregnant, she decides to keep the baby, but the man still doesn't intend to be a parent. Therefore, does he have the right to decline parenthood? I think Tyler's getting at accidental pregnancy (or worse, a woman lying about or sabotaging protection) being used to force a guy into parenthood to stay with her. I understand the concern about "consequence-free sex" and guys just being careless and casually opting out of responsibility, leaving the woman to either abort or raise it as a single mother (or search for a willing step-dad), which is a serious issue, but bodily autonomy doesn't mean a woman can force parenthood on a man any more than the other way around. It's situational, at least.
I agree with basically everything you say and this is a pretty nitpicky detail, but it bugs me how you had to make it about casual sex. This is something anti-abortion people do a lot too, with their whole "she just wants to ride the cock carousel with no consequences" or "this is why you should wait until marriage" bullshit. Unwanted pregnancies are NOT just a consequence of casual sex and although you might not have meant it that way, bringing casual sex into the conversation somewhat carries the implication that if two people are in a committed relationship they will automatically want children. You can be MARRIED to someone and still not want kids. In fact I've seen quite a few anecdotes about this, about people being in committed relationships where they have different ideas of when/if the want children, and the woman intentionally gets pregnant because she figures her boyfriend/husband will just roll with it and she'll get her perfect little family even though she's blatantly ignoring his wishes.
@@KreeZafi Fair point. I did mean it as sex simply for the pleasure of it, committed relationship or not, without intending for children, I just don't know how else this would be called other than casual.
Never thought I'd see the hosts advocating for poor people to just not have sex on the Athiest Experience. It felt like I was watching a Christain broadcast advocating for abstinence. As a fan this was disappointing and hard to watch. The arrogance of telling the caller any man who would want to opt out of parenthood just wants to go around having consequence free sex was shocking. I've come to expect this kind of hateful and narrowminded rhetoric from some of their callers but never from the hosts. I feel like I slipped into the twilight zone after Matt looked up the rape case and chose to fight over the number of similar cases instead of the rights of a male rape victim. I think the caller's question was worthy of an actual discussion, not whatever this was.
I don't know what happened to Matt here. Maybe he was having a bad day or something. But his arguments in this seem so flawed and illogical. Its even more infuriating how he dismisses the callers querries and arguments with " tough shit" like that is in any way a response. If this had been a theist caller who dismissed Matt's argument and queries with the same response, I have a feeling Matt wouldn't have be as level-headed as this caller. It gets even more weird when he talks about the man accepting the consequences and being an adult. Which is hilarious because that's the same arguments pro-life callers have no doubt used against him and he probably dismissed as flawed.
What utter bull shit. Some life situations can only be described as tough shit and if you think Matt's argument here is anywhere near his argument against pro lifers you need to go back and rewatch his discussions again.
@@MagetaTheLionHeart By you and Matts logic why can't I equally say "tough shit" to a woman who wants an abortion? Afterall actions have consequences and you have to live with them, those where his literal words BTW. Your doing the same shit and simply throwing out some buzz word like it answers anything or even remotely bring anything to the discussion. Its absolutely pathetic and devoid of logic and reason that we as self proclaimed thinkers should stride for.
@Michael Lane AronRa is similar. I take issue with this too, since any proper study into the early feminist movement makes it clear it was misandrist, racist and not even particularly concerned for the gender it claims to advocate for. The amount of laws implemented by feminists that privilege women at the direct expense of men are nothing less than bigotry. Ironically, the humanist arguments that many atheists like Matt and Aron Ra utilize to point out the oppressive nature of religion apply to feminism, the extreme left and what progressivism ultimately has become but like how religious people use doublethink to think rational about everything save their faith so do atheists like Aron/Matt. They claim to be skeptics and follow evidence with rigorous research but clearly not on this topic. They'd rather jump on their white knight righteous soupbox than look at the facts, which is that men are clearly second class citizens and that the 'women were oppressed' narrative of the past is a myth. Women had disadvantages but then the lives of men in older times were similarly harsh, I would argue significantly more so on average. David Silverman found this out the hard way when he got falsely accused and they removed him without a second thought. Yet these people still have the blinders on.
@Michael Lane The words misogyny and racism have now been perverted to mean "things people say I don't like or want to hear". Which is a shame, because it is a grave insult to those people that actually have legitimate suffering due to actual bigotry, as opposed to imagined. Did not know that about Hawking. If that's the case, it is deeply depressing.
Gestation is the defining point here. Matt believes in a woman's right to choose because he believes bodily autonomy is paramount. Child support isn't a violation of bodily autonomy. Non consensual pregnancy is a violation of bodily autonomy. I don't agree with him on this point, but he isn't being inconsistent. If men were the ones gestating, he would be saying women have to pay child support if that man chooses to continue the pregnancy.
Its unfortunate but the problem ultimately isn't the conclusion because it is the only rational conclusion to reach. The rhetoric and nonsense he is tossing around to denigrate the position is the same rhetoric used to denigrate women who are considering or have abortions by Christians.
@@saje239 The point I was making is that Matt's dismissive too bad, if you don't want the responsibility don't have sex.... for men only.... is exactly what anti-abortionists say about women. Matt's arguments lead to the idea that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have sex.... if he was being fair.... as he said near the end " if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
@Grey Bough I love Dave Chappelle and agree that men should be able to sign away parental rights, but it's not actually a comparable situation. I just think parents should be allowed to sign away parental rights. To me, it's probably not going to be good for a child to be raised by people who were forced into it so we shouldn't force them. For most women who gestate, the maternal instinct is usually strong enough to prevent that, but for men not so much. I think the reason we force it here in America is because we are largely opposed to social supports and recognize that it will impact the child's quality of life.
Matt Dillahunty: We can't tell women they shouldn't have sex if they don't like the consequences. Also Matt Dillahunty: men shouldn't have sex if they don't like the consequences.
I think he literally said that men can have sex without consequence. The consequence seems to be, a child, and I hate that that seems to be a such a negative thing from all perspectives.
@@jasonhiatt3667that’s not what he said. Matt said “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” That implies that men are consenting to being fathers, every time they have sex, while women are free to opt out, until at least early into the 2nd trimester. We can’t make women do or not do anything (I agree with that), but we DO make men be the parent, based on the decision that only the woman can make. I’m not trying to make a case, only to clarify what was said and what is the standard set of rules were given.
Wow, Matt really has some topics that he is clearly emotionally invested in. So invested that he makes completely irrational arguments in a vain attempt to prove what an ally he is to women. Well we can be allies to women without white knighting. Someone should explain that to Matt.
Yeah, I'm a woman and support my rights to abortion 100% but thinking about this from a man's perspective for 1 second makes me scared to shit. Early on in the pregnancy (so the woman has plenty of time to abort) the man shouldn't be able to relieve himself of all rights and obligations, and probably provide a fee to the woman to cover abortion and any other associated health costs. From there the woman gets to decide 100% and can let the man have any involvement she wants, including none at all
As the person who said "Maybe not dishonest but you're making the same arguments to a man Christians make to a woman," I'd still like to know how not? The ultimate conclusion is correct but saying shit like "you just want to have consequence free sex" to a man is literally, almost word for word, among the things Christians say about women and abortion. And that was only the most egregious example. The way he approached this was horrendous in order to reach the only rational conclusion. Also appreciate being called a douchebro along with others for pointing out the double standard he used rhetorically to arrive at the reasonable conclusion. I'm sorry for having the intellectual integrity to think the rationale you use to justify a conclusion matters alongside the conclusion.
@@Diviance That would be nice if it were possible to just flip the baby switch to off and on whenever it was convenient honestly. The switch for STDs and morning after regret too. But we live in a world where things happen that we didn't intend.
@@sypherthe297th2 Well, now I am just imagining a genetic modification people do for the baby while in the womb that renders them completely infertile. Then, later in life, when you want to actually have kids, you just take this pill or get a simple 5 minute procedure that reverses the genetic alteration and lets you have kids again. That would be a fascinating method of birth control... I can see potential issues, but it would be fascinating.
@@Diviance Oh I have no doubt we'll get up to shenanigans like that one of these days. Maybe parents won't do it to kids in the womb enmass but there would certainly be a market once it becomes simple and unobjectionable enough. Then the inevitable class action lawsuit when they discover "Oops maybe we can't reverse it as easily as we thought," and the lawyers make billions off the settlement while the clients get a coupon for a free genetic modification of their choice. Wait I'm an American class action lawsuits and holding big business accountable aren't things we do here.
I'm a straight man and I have to tell you that, unfortunately, we men have to consider that as a possibility. What if you wear a condom and somehow it rips or something? same thing. How can you prove that she lied? It's shitty but biology has determined that's the way. We men are lucky we dont have to carry a baby for 9 months, gain weight, give birth, get stretch marks, get saggy tits for the rest of our live afterwards, risk dying during child-birth, etc. Biology made us lucky that way. On the other hand, that gives the woman the right to choose what to do, not us.
@@amacuro so because pregnancy sucks, a woman ostensibly has a right to force a man to subsidize her choice even if he does not want to parent a child. Bottom line: men cannot choose for women, but women can choose for men. Its a double standard that does not stand in the case of women, but its totally fine to force the burden of a child on a man. Just because a man doesnt carry the child doesnt mean his lifeblood won't be sucked dry over at least the next 18 years. Both sides suffer from the decision to have a child. Those that do not want to suffer should be able to opt out of their parental responsibilities. If the woman wants to keep a child against the mans wishes, she should assume any and every single financial burden for that child. She is the one choosing to keep it, she should have to pay for it.
@@amacuro I think women lie about it fairly regularly. It's an unfair situation and there are women who play the system. Also, if a rubber breaks in my opinion, the guy should be able to opt out, and she should be able to get an abortion. If she chooses to have the kid at that point it's on her to provide for it.
@@amacuro you might not feel so lucky after paying $60,000 of child support. Let's imagine a broken condom. Both parties man and woman, decided they didn't want to have a pregnancy. At what point does it become ok for the woman to change her mind and decide she wants to have the baby? The answer is, whenever she wants to. This again begs the question, how is the guy responsible for her change of plans? Maybe the condom company should pay child support as well.
@@FendenKrell you still have the option to wear a condom. Why is preventing pregnancy only the woman's duty? Carry a condom if you don’t wanna face the consequences of sex.
Matt, I can assure you that the world with financial abortions would be a massively better one. I submit three points: Children that are born are WANTED and supported by both parents and have better chances to succeed. Less children are born. Reproductive deception will disappear.
"Ahh, but if you can't afford to have a kid you shouldn't be ducking!" Unless you have ovaries, then its his fault! Even if she lies about the pill when if the man did the same (poking holes) he would be a criminal. Yet she can poke holes, unanimously change her mind back and forth but men are supposed to somehow fully responsible and more for both of their choices unless she disagrees? This is ridiculous!
@@jloren4647 that would require the condom to be opened beforehand in order to poke holes in the latex. Sabotage of his condoms doesn’t happen. Ever. Her lying about her birth control doesn’t change a damn thing about his independent decision not to use any himself
@@jloren4647 dude, not a poe. No one is poking holes in your condoms. Your hostility towards women, as if they are trying to trap you (you can’t be trapped by your own actions) is giving off a lot of MRA whiny loser energy. Even if that were true (that she poked holes), you were still the dumbass that didn’t bother to pull out before you came. There is very very little mobile sperm in precum. Less than 25 million. That’s less than 50 million sperm…and men with 50 million sperm counts in their entire ejaculate have been trying to get their wives pregnant for 3 years or more…. So please. Stop being negligent with your sperm and then whining about being responsible for your own negligence.
Well I think Tyler has a point. This is an unfair law, that the father cannot relinquish rights to the unborn child. If we can give rights to abortion, we should also be able to give rights to the fathers to abandon. "Consequence to having sex" goes equally to both consenting party. Think about it people.
You are forgetting that the 'father' can have a good time ole time and walk away with not having to go through a medical procedure or expense to abort the consequences of having sex. So how do you propose to level that playing field if you want everything to be equal in an imperfect world.... maybe he should go through a vasectomy while she has an abortion. Fair's fair and all.
@@propop1 abortion is not equal to vasectomy, look it up. And no one said that both party wont be equally liable for the costs, unless it was a rape case. In those cases I wished we cud transfer the pregnancies to that dude(if guilty), however until that is possible, the guy should be prison worked and the abortion amd therapy should be a goverment expense.
@@propop1 Uh, the father will be liable to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support over 18 years for a child he didn’t want. If the mother wants to keep that baby it’s her choice, but not at the financial expense of someone else. Let the father relinquish rights and move on.
I'm not choosing a side, but Matt isn't addressing the callers actual question in my opinion, is: Women have the right to choose, to opt out of pregnancy via abortion, but a man cannot opt out for any reason. While that is thus far unavoidable, is it ETHICAL? Women have the right to consequence free sex, and I think Matt supports that right for women. Why is it unethical for a man to "opt-out" but a woman has a protected right to do the same? If a woman is broke, does that mean she shouldn't be fucking? Do women need money to choose sex? Or just men?
This is a tricky subject because pregnancy is inherently unequal. The women has the right to choose whether to go through with a pregnancy or not. The man should not have authority over what the women decides with her body. People are trying to suggest that to make it equal the man should be able to "opt-out". But the real equality here would be that a baby is born and both the mother and father have the option of opting out. That's the path this "equality" takes. Until there's a way to make pregnancy equal (lab baby), this "opt-out" is simply trying to gain a concession for not getting the choice on what the women should do with the fetus. "You unfairly get this choice and I don't because of how pregnancy works so I seek another right to make it even".
It is ethical because ultimately, after the point of viability and birth, only one party was not culpable in the birth. The child themselves. Therefore the legal standard is best interests of the child and rightly so. This power imbalance is unfortunate but I don't see any way to square this circle.
@@ragadanked As I understand it, the argument here is: In the current context, a man CANNOT opt out, but all things being equal, they SHOULD have the same rights, regardless of what is on the ground now. No one worth listening to is saying men should get any additional rights. I believe they are saying that it is still worth recognizing and analyzing.
@@djtripnosys I definitely agree that this is an issue worth recognizing. Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the argument in the video was: Why can a women have an abortion (insinuating this is opting out) but a man can't opt out of parenthood. Or was he saying why can a women opt out of parenthood but a man can't?
@@sypherthe297th2 Exactly. But I believe the main point is, that IS an imbalance, and acknowledging it and trying to address it, at least in a philosophical sense is a fair discussion.
@Andrew Fairfax : Then why can a woman walk away from being financially responsible for her child, but a man cannot? Woman can give up a child "no questions asked" in most states and just walk away. Why don't men have the same right?
@@justabill5780 I've been thinking about it and looking closer at both sides of the argument. I think the issue people have is that if you have it in society that the man can simply opt-out of the scenario all together, there's no way for a court to determine if you two were actually planning on it or not. It could have been a plan in the works the whole time and the guy just got cold feet and decided he didn't want to be a part of it at the last minute. This type of scenario would mean the mother brought the kid to term with the understanding that the dad would be in the picture, and she's now screwed. So, wouldn't it be really easy to remedy that? The moment the mother finds out she's pregnant, she goes to court and names the father, who can contest if the child is even his or not. If it is, or if he doesn't dispute it, then you both make it clear wether your intent was to have a child or not, officially, on paper. If the dad says it was an intended pregnancy and decides to opt out later, he's on the hook for child support because he agreed this pregnancy was legitimate. If he does not name the pregnancy legitimate, he still has a legal obligation to provide support to the mother throughout the pregnancy (if she chooses to keep it), or to help with the cost of abortion if she chooses not to. This scenario would ensure the man holds up his responsibility for the pregnancy wether he wanted it or not, but it also doesn't put him on the lifetime hook of supporting a kid he never tried for to begin with. Once the child is born, the father is no longer responsible for financially supporting the mother and the mother could not have been surprised by a sudden decision to abandon the family. So wether she chose to have the kid or not, she did so knowing full well the intent of the father. I'm not saying this scenario is a good one or anything, but where I'm at so far with this, it sounds reasonable. I'd like to hear what other people think.
@@kelleren4840 Not really. I think he is just pointing out that if a female wants to abort it, then he can at least abandon it. There isn't much in the way of fallacy of reasoning there either. Not once did he say a woman shouldn't be able to choose. Demographic ethics has nothing to do with it. Aswell as life viability. This argument is purely from a standpoint of what a person should choose to be able to do.
No one should be forced to become a parent. Women who make the choice without the input of the father should bear the responsibility of that choice. It’s irresponsible to have unprotected sex but just as a woman shouldn’t have her life dictated by one night, neither should a man’s
I get what you're saying but even still the father should have some kind of roll in their kids life, do they have to have custody of the child no they don't but I mean spending at least the weekends with the child wouldn't hurt I mean it is their kid
@@nyapayton7087 He doesn’t want the child. He has a right not to want the child. He might even be a bad influence as his detest for the child might show and damage the kid. No one really wins here.
I'm usually in agreement with Matt on all points, but not on this one. I think Tyler makes his point very respectfully and precise, but Matt gets agitated for no reason. Maybe because he's having trouble finding a good argument :P
This was seriously painful to listen to. And for the first time not because of the caller. He was not making the point well, but he was not the problem here. We are giving an artificial right to women to abort a pregnancy, as we should. And we are not giving that right to a man. Why? This obviously does not have to equate to a termination of the pregnancy, but could very well be a termination of the legal responsibility. Why does a woman have the right to a mans DNA if it was given accidentaly and with reasonable protection? "You should not have sex then" "You have consented to the possibility of a pregnancy" That is exactly the disengenuous bullshit that people tell women. I would realy hope that Matt and Jim listen to this call again and adress the flipping around of arguments that is so obvious here.
If the dude opts out early, and the kid is kept and ends up suffering, that's because the woman didn't abort. It's her fucking fault in that situation.
Wow, I wasn't expecting Matt to say that poor people don't deserve to have sex. I have heard him in the past assert that sex is a natural part of being human that we should acknowledge all people can want regardless of background.
sebastep - I noticed the duplicity of this as well. There can be a good reason for treating one class of people differently than others (welfare is given only to poor people, for instance) , but I didn’t hear Matt justify the duplicity once. I hope he doesn’t stop talking about it, I’d love to know more about why he thinks this way and how he justifies it. It’s not impossible that I’m wrong and thinking too simply and Matt just didn’t have time to explain his position, though I must admit I have my doubts
@@bariumselenided5152 I could be wrong here, but I think Matt had more than just one meaning in what he said, and that y'all are taking it too literally. Additionally, Matt isn't the one who brought one's financial status into the conversation. Matt was more or less just rebutting the "I can't afford child support" excuse. I'm fairly certain he was more referring to just people engaging in irresponsible behavior in general. Matt is not a moron. Of course he knows that a "poor" person can obviously have responsible sex. He just doesn't like someone using their financial status as an excuse, when that person should have been more selective about where he put his baby gravy! .
Over a year later and this is still one of the worst takes on the internet, as far as I'm concerned. We can't see the down-votes anymore (thanks RUclips, really helpful), but it's good to see that the comment section, seemingly unanimously, tore the video to shreds. +1 for scepticism and critical thinking... good job, guys!
Yep. We should call out ANYONE (including and most importantly our own community) on bullshit they say. Matt is only human. It only strengthens the skeptic community to call out these bad takes.
And, then at the end he has a hissy fit because people are calling out his hypocrisy, and starts spewing insults like a child. I feel so bad for the woman that was married to him for awhile. Those must have been the worst few years of her life.
I’m with the caller on this one. If the sperm donor doesn’t want a kid, and the mother wants to carry to term, that’s her decision and her responsibility. MAYBE a one time child support payment is necessary (more than the cost of an abortion).
@Steve Doud only if both consent to the child being born. Like this: After pregnancy Man+woman consent: child born and both are responsible for it Man consent but woman doesn’t: child aborted Woman consent but man doesn’t: child born and only the woman is responsible Neither consent: child aborted
I'm with the caller frankly, if I have a one night stand with somebody and take all the proper procedures I possibly can to prevent a pregnancy and I clearly say to my partner I DO NOT WANT TO BE A FATHER. Then a pregnancy occurs I should not be held responsible if the mother carries the fetus to term, it's a fetus and my sperm is no longer in my testicles, it's inside her and she consented to taking the risk to have sperm put into her vagina. I can't be held responsible for a sperm cell which is inside somebody elses body, I can't exactly dig in there and pull them out. She took the risk, she knows what happens when sperm gets inside her. To put it bluntly I have just as much of a right to reliquinish my responsibility to the sperm cell in her vagina as a woman has to reliquinish responsibility to fetus cells in her womb. I terminate my responsibility to the sperm cells and if it leads to fertilisation and you don't want to be pregnant you have the right to also reliquinish responsibility too through termination. If you choose to keep the fetus to term that's your choice and also your responsibility. I've already made it absolutely fucking clear I do not consent to fatherhood, I do not consent to the responsibility of being a parent. I abstain from being a father in the first place, I'm not the father and therefore can't even be a deadbeat father, call me an A-Father much as an Atheist., I'm a sperm donor at best and you chose to continue the pregnancy and that's on you, unfair like a flat tire. I've had a spermbortion. It's up to you to have an abortion if you don't want the child. Now if I abstain from fatherhood and you want to keep the fetus, I'll happily provide you with money to cover the cost of an abortion should you change your mind. What i'm also saying is you as a mother are not entitled to special priviledges which is exactly what Matt is inherently advocating for. The argument he is using leads to women have rights over men. You're essentially saying women can tell men "you're going to be the father whether you like it or not" which is paramount to the government telling women "you are getting pregnant whether you like it or not". Pregnancy lasts 9 months but a fatherhood set up is commitment for a persons entire fucking life and there's no way out of it. You are holding a mans Time, Energy and his Wallet at metophorical Gunpoint and telling him "be a father or go to jail" (as failure to pay child support leads to debt, fines and eventual jail time). Fuck that system, fuck that inequality and fuck this continued bashing of men labeling them as Deadbeats and useless for simply chosing not to consent to a pregnancy, the same thing pro-choice advocates claim should be a womans right. Matt continues that taking no responsibility for the fetus could mean that the woman would have to terminate the pregnancy even if she doesn't want to, or could have to remain pregnant even if she doesn't want to. That's an issue for greater society not the responsibility of the biological father of the fetus. It's not his job to keep her financially uplifted if she is in a situation where she can't or must have an abortion for financial reasons. That's where our society steps in through taxes and provides her with the options she so chooses by offering child subsidises or free abortions. One final thing, Matt stop slut shaming men too if you don't mind. I've have as much right as anyone else to have sex with whoever i want and vice versa. I can be a male sex worker if I fucking want to. This bullshit double standard where i'm just some jiggalo it's a serious sexist problem.
I really felt for this caller. The argument that "there are consequences to having sex" could be used to justify the prohibition of abortion just the same. "If you are not capable of supporting a child you shouldn't be fucking" - but only for men, because women have options (included, but not limited to, abortion). PS.:I DO think abortion should be legal. But there IS an imbalance in reproductive rights, and "tough shit" is a piss poor response to it.
I don’t see how the same argument could be made at all. Pregnancy IS the consequence for having sex for the woman. Abortion (or birth) is therefore taking responsibility for that consequence. For men, pregnancy isn’t their consequence because they don’t get pregnant. Their consequence is their culpability in someone needing an abortion, or someone needing child support. Do you see the distinction?
@@cm4502 Have you paid someone $700 per month for 23 years, under threat of imprisonment and utter destruction of your entire life? It feels kinda like rape, but it carries on beyond two decades.
@@tos100returns you know you are an autonomous independent adult, yes? You know that you can have sex without introducing the only external catalyst to pregnancy, yes? If you didn’t pull out while wearing a condom, you acted negligently, and are therefore liable for that negligence. I promise you, you’re getting off easy. she’s spending a Hella lot more than $700 a month on your kid. Stop whining that you don’t get consequence free sex anymore than she does.
yea and even if you agree or disagree with matt there was no need for him to approach the convo in this way (at least up until halfway through). acting as if he’s committing some sort of atrocities
double standard. if the female knowingly carries a child to term knowing that the "sperm donor" is unprepared to father a child it's the EXACT same coercion in reverse. you have a problem with the pressure that would put on the female to either abort or chose to take on the responsibility of parenting a child. if the female in this situation decides that she wants to undergo the physiological changes and the stresses of carrying a child to term, knowing full well that the "donor" has not the means nor the desire to father a child, then she is now using that as leverage to pressure someone else into a situation that will have a dramatic effect on the rest of "the donors" life, as if that's just the natural consequence of having sex. you're acting like this is a better world (as if consequence free sex would be a bad thing.. for either party..). You are ignoring the fact that giving birth to a human in this situation leads to suffering for the child, the father, AND the mother. increases the number of people living in poverty stricken lives, resenting each other. this shows how privileged and disconnected you are from the current socioeconomic woes that MOST people in the US are dealing with, you are completely unaware of the suffering that will result from the females choice to carry to term and leverage THAT human being that she decided to create against another human that both of them were likely unprepared to raise. Are you aware that the majority of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (you act like the father being broke is a rare special situation)? Are you saying that only people with exceptional finances should be allowed to have sex? consequence free sex, is a better world, and you had nothing to back up your claim that it wouldnt be a better world, other than your apparent disgust for the idea that people having sex might not be punished by a life time of suffering and poverty. this is abhorrent. Edit: poisoning the well tactics by calling everyone who disagrees with you "dudes"(or w/e) and deadbeats WAS also quite repugnant" I'm quite livid. I watch these because it's so satisfying to hear logical reasoning . and now I don't think I can watch any more content from this man.
Everyone should have a right to be a deadbeat dad, just like women have the right to be a deadbeat mother by giving the child up for adoption. it´s the same thing, but we use much harsher language when talking about men than women. Men also can not be ready to raise a child, and if a woman decides to do to it, she can´t expect someone else to also participate.
While your logic sounds fair, here are a couple more considerations: 1. Because of what a baby requires of a woman both during pregnancy and for years after (to give the best to the child), women are much less able to work and bring income, than a man. Hence, historically why the man works and the woman has the babies and stays home caring for them. 2. Women have more control over whether they get pregnant or not. They are the final gatekeeper. Therefore they have, or should have, more responsibility for a pregnancy. Matt probably wouldn't like to hear that. He keeps talking about it like the two genders should have equal responsibility for the risk of pregnancy when "there's just two equal people wanting to have sex."
A woman can't unilaterally give a baby up for adoption. The father must consent as well. This issue cuts both ways because if either parent refuses the adoption the other parent is on the hook. IMO, that's the problem. Neither parent can opt out independently.
@@jdsartre9520 Pregnancy is entirely a woman's responsibility because it happens inside her body. It has nothing to do with her being the "final gate keeper" or what "should" happen. No one else is capable of being responsible for it. Both parties have equal responsibility in preventing the pregnancy when one isn't wanted. The male belief that women are solely responsibly for this is the cause of many unplanned pregnancies. Either have a vasectomy or wrap it up every time. A woman needs to either have a tubal ligation or get on hormonal birth control. Men who aren't doing their part really have no right to be upset about the outcome. The same for women.
I'm confused. The man has every right to not be involved in raising the child. All they have to do is contribute funds to aid the woman's effort to raise the child. I'm not too well-versed with laws regarding the matter, but I'd hope the reverse arrangement would also apply should the woman not wish to raise the child when the man does (seems it does in my area).
“If [She] was broke she shouldn’t be fucking.” Matt, I am genuinely disappointed in you. Calling a man a dead beat dad for giving up his parental rights? Why don’t you apply that to the opposite sex? Why don’t you call all parents who give there children up for adoption dead beat parents?
Like a lot of commenters, this is one of the very few times I've disagreed with Matt. If you enter a sexual relationship with the understanding that neither party wants a child, neither party should be forced to be responsible for any part of that childs life, whether that be the man or the woman. If you enter a sexual relationship with both sides saying they don't want to be a parent, but one changes their mind after the fact, neither party should be forced to be responsible for any part of that childs life, whether that be the man or the woman. If you enter into a relationship where one person is deceiving the other about not wanting to be a parent, neither party should be forced to be responsible for any part of that childs life, whether that be the man of the woman. If the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy, that should definitely be their decision, but neither party, whether mother or father, should be forced to be responsible, physically or financially, for the childs life at ay point.
So basically you want consequence free sex, and don’t want to be culpable for your actions. Got it. Trouble with your “no one should be responsible” thing is that after birth, there is a child with rights to financial support. Child support isn’t really parenting.
@CM if you agree that you don't want something, and when protection fails you go back on your side and choose to keep it; yes, I think he should be able to opt out, not 100% consequence free, let him pay the bill as she pays physically, but she gets minimal consequence to opt out, compared to 18 years of indentured servitude
@@75ur15 paying for support to the child you created by your negligence (yes, not taking every precaution available and only relying on one method is negligence) is not - in any sense - indentured servitude. Just stop. No one is kidnapping his sperm and making him be a parent. His risk of being a parent is higher than hers because he’s not the one that has to decide if they abort. Therefore, he has an extra responsibility to take more than one precaution if he doesn’t want to be a parent. It’s that simple.
@CM any argument to make where she has the choice to abort and he has no out makes it that way. Any argument made saying be cautious could be used against abortion, if she has an out so should he, and he does not. One specific case where it is very much indentured servitude, there are cases where an underage male is taken, and later forced to lay child support to his attacker. That is a worst case scenario. My meaning doesn't require that but it is worse that way. Being forced into a situation where you have no control (and SHE DOES) is indentured servitude, either pay up, or go to jail, what else do you call that?
@CM got the defintion: Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered voluntarily for eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed as a judicial punishment. Forced by judicial punishment to work to pay off a debt......for a specific number of years......18 in this case
As a pro choice woman, I find this an interesting topic and wouldn't have been as "stern" on this as Matt was. I do feel like there is more conversation and consideration to be had.. I would agree that the man cannot force the woman to carry the child to term, if the woman doesnt want to. Whether to carry the baby to term or not, should he her choice completely, for reasons stated. However, I also feel like, the woman cannot force the guy to take responsibility and be a parent, if he doenst want to. I mean, I would hope the man would want to, but you cannot force someone to want to have a child. If there was no deception involved, and the child was truly conceived by an honest accident... Of course if the man wouldn't want to take responsibility, this could impact the decision of the woman on whether to carry to term or not. However, I think, in all honestly, that it would be wise to consider whether you want to have a child with a certain person or not. Whether you would want to be a single mom. Whether you'd want to have a child growing up who will know they were/are unwanted by one of their parents. Because no matter how you spin it, that is the reality in that case. Cause even if the law would dictate a man to at a minimum pay child support, the law cannot force a (good) relationship between parent and child.. Just my 2 cents.
It's a really tricky question. And there is no easy answer. And no way to make it TRUELY fair, because biology simply doesn't work the same for both sides. Which is why it angers me, that Matt is being so inconsidered and such a dick to the caller (calling it "stern" is an understatement, he just being mean here). I lean towards allowing the man to opt out as well, given that if SHE can have a say if she (legally) wants to become a parent, so should he. However, obviously, as you point out, if the man just opts out, and the woman doesn't have the ways to support herself and the child, this could almost be considered coersion towards an abortion. That's what I mean when I say that there is no fair option here, because nature didn't make it fair. And which is why this is a topic where I see no justification to jump at people's throats for disagreeing. Because as far as I can tell, nobody can provide an option that is NOT unfair in one way or another. Oh, of course, minor detail here, but for completeness sake it needs to point out: If the woman gets an abortion, the cost of it should be shared. In that case, it's the woman's choice, and he will just have to pay up if she makes that choice. He shouldn't be able to opt out of that, even if he wanted her to have the baby.
What pisses me off in this whole conversation is 3 separate things: 1) the biological male is the one that introduces his sperm into her body with his direct and conscious actions. For women, whether the egg comes out is not under her direct control, nor where the egg comes out. Tyler wants to whine that women get this extra choice that he doesn’t? Well, men have an extra choice that women don’t. Women can’t have sex but pull out and ovulate away from their body. Men CAN wear a condom and pull out. Both of these measures, when used together, are more effective than anything the woman can do for birth control that doesn’t involve major surgery. So he is the one that is the MOST culpable because pregnancy for women is completely autonomic. That’s why - when a couple is trying to conceive - insemination needs to be planned around ovulation and not the other way around. 2) financial responsively - while it’s an ELEMENT of parenthood - is not parenthood. He doesn’t have to see or even speak to the child. He doesn’t have to parent the child at all. He is simply financially responsible for the burden he placed. Much like I’m financially responsible for any car accident I cause. That’s why I have insurance because I cannot afford to self insure. 3) the child is now a person. The deed is done. And that person has rights to parental obligations for its care. It didn’t ask to be born, and took no part in the liability of sex. The woman and the man did. And while liability never extends past the barrier of the skin…his income is not part of his body. He has zero responsibility to a fetus. He has responsibility to the child that grows from that fetus.
@@josecampechano6136 why is he wrong? It has nothing to do with money. Firstly, there are programs out there specifically made to dole out free condoms to people with little money or in otherwise difficult situations to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There are possibly organizations that could provide vasectomies gratis or inexpensive for men in difficult situations. There are people, as Matt stated, who are barren for whatever reason who couldn’t conceive and maybe it’s worth only engaging in unprotected intercourse with people you know absolutely cannot conceive (including doing something with yourself) rather than rolling the dice.
@@joshuaklein8429 there are sexual accidents. and the efficiency of the condoms are not 100%. in other words everytime people have sex( hetero) might end up in an unwanted child, for any of the actors. it is fucked up.
@@joshuaklein8429 i always find funny when you americans speak as if your country is the entired world. it is not. in other countries, people really have no control over how many kids they have.
I'm only half way through this, but matt appears to be arguing against abortion? You're not free from the consequences, you have to just deal with it, its a risk you take. You know that going into it... its part of being a responsible adult. If I didn't know better I'd think this guy was debating a pro lifer... Talk about cognitive dissonance.
No. He's not arguing against abortion. He's arguing against trying to apply the same rule to the pregnant person and the person who contributed the sperm. The two are not the same in the way pregnancy will impact them. They both have the right to bodily autonomy, but since pregnancy requires only one of their bodies, only that person has the right to terminate or maintain the pregnancy.
@@joseespinoza2615 In most states, possibly all, rape does remove financial obligation. If that's not the case everywhere, I'm pretty sure almost every woman would agree it should be. No one is arguing that men that are raped should be forced to take responsibility for a child that resulted.
@@saje239 not in venezuela thou. But I understand your point, (and actually I'm happier now that I know that) think I went over the board with my comment, even if it's a case in some places. So, returning to the point. All I argue is that the choice of being a parent should be taken by both parties. Of course, I agree that both parties have to help financially for the abortion, if the abortion is the option taken at the end.
Any man who is honest with a woman and tell her he doesn't want to be a father if she get pregnant he shouldn't be called a deadbeat father. The same way a woman shouldn't be called a murderer for aborting a fetus she doesn't want to carry.
Thanks. It’s so obvious I don’t understand how he didn’t get that.
@@nathanjora7627 Exactly! At the end of the day people are still going to have sex. You can protect yourself all you want, but sometimes condoms break & pills aren't effective enough, then what. If you consent to the act and I told you upfront then it is what tf it is.
@@KeetWeet Agreed.
And I’m watching his follow up video... it’s almost making things worse.
He has this fear that actually irresponsible men that just purely don’t have any care in the world for how their actions could impact others will benefit too much from a policy that allows men to get out of parenthood, and... I can understand that. Hell, I’ll even agree with that, casanovas that don’t give a damn about wether or not they’ll get someone pregnant are doing something wrong and it’s a case where forcing them to own their responsibility is good. But 1) for one Casanova, how many normal men that were just too young or too economically unprepared, and that did take precautions but had bad luck, 2) since freakin when are we making policies based on « guilty until proven otherwise » ?
If Matt wants the policy on parental rights to protect women that are victims of uncaring men, that’s fine, I’d say they still have the option to abort, but I still share his point of view since abortion isn’t without social and psychological consequences, and it has a financial cost as well (forcing men to pay for women’s abortions when they were the ones who didn’t want a baby seems entirely right to me).
But how does that address or prevent the policy to address the issue of protecting men from manipulative women, or from sheer bad luck (which I’d bet is the most frequent reason) ?
And I hate how he conflates the consequences of childbirth (damage on the body, risk of death and injury, etc), with the consequences of pregnancy (the social and financial standing etc). Like... Matt, we agree that there will be « consequences » to pregnancy in that sense, but that’s not the consequences we were talking about, we were talking about the consequence of « having a child », if you want to bring other consequences in the discussion feel free to do so but don’t equivocate them >
Wtf was matt thinking man. He wasn't listening at all.
@@jamestaylor4434 I guess he wasn't
"If you cannot support a child you shouldn't have sex"
I dare him to tell that to a woman
What a frustrating response to a caller to listen to. For any reason a woman would want to "opt out of parental responsibility" ( abort a pregnancy) a man could have the exact same reason to do the same thing, minus the donate my body argument obviously. Equal rights for both partners not special rights for women.
@@landminelieutenant1597 I mean that's a pretty big thing you're subtracting from one side of the equation here.
Yeah the anti male sexism is rank in this show
It's funny how he's like you don't want to be a deadbeat dad do you? Then turns around and acts like it's okay that the mom can just kill a baby lol
Dave Chappelle said it best if she's allowed to kill the mother f***** I should be allowed to not pay for him.
Even though both of these decisions are terrible in the people are horrible for making them but it is fair in this instance
He doesn't have to tell that to a woman. Women, like sperm donors, can take precautions beforehand to not get pregnant. If she gets pregnant, she has additional measures she can take that includes and should continue to include abortion.
Been listening to Matt for a LONG time and I totally disagree with him. Most of the Scandinavian countries have implemented a “legal abortion” option that allows the male to sign away all legal and monetary rights to a child. They did this to promote TRUE equality between the sexes. It also keeps the domestic violence rates lower because men never feel forced to do something that they don’t want to. Matt is totally off base here.
They also provide full medical coverage and support for mother and child. We need that here.
Matt has serious personality issues. He is so desperate to prove that he is one of the good men who doesn't hate women that he makes a fool of himself by getting confrontational over a completely rational point of contention.
Just Denmark has done this, so quite dishonnest to say that most scandinavian countries have, when it's one of three.
@@DeaconVersion Yeah I feel like he probably has a lot of cis white male guilt going on. Such a disappointment to see current social trends influence someone who is supposedly a champion of critical thought.
@@CreedTheSpy Denmark does not have it. It was discussed politically in Denmark a few years ago, but was never put into law. As far as I can see, no country have it today.
The guy tells Matt that a father relinquishing his rights requires the signature of the mother, Matt acknowledged that it was unfortunate and yet his reply was "tough shit". Very disappointing to hear from a man who I find to be pretty reasonable in most situations.
@@RealChrisHatch no need for apologies my friend a little disappointment is good from time to time keeps us grounded 😂
It was wild. I’m all for acknowledging reality, but we don’t stop at “tough shit” . We go further and say “tough shit for now, let’s make it better”
@@bariumselenided5152 agreed brother! Ironically it's a response he doesn't accept himself. When religious people respond to his criticism with "oh well" "tough shit" or the popular "well that's just how it is" he dismisses them just as quickly. It's about progressing the conversation not dismissing people's legitimate arguments due to your ideology.
What's your remedy then?
@@ThatWriterWriter1 I would never be arrogant enough to insist that I have the end all conclusion for a subject this complex. However, my initial comment was intended to point out the dismissive nature of Matt's argument and the hypocrisy of using cliche pro-life arguments against the caller, especially when he was simply trying to learn and gain understanding. But to answer your question more directly, I don't have a remedy currently, but I think it's a conversation that requires a lot more civility and understanding than what was shown by Matt here.
“You realize that you can have a vasectomy or have sex with someone who is infertile”.
You mean just like a woman can get her tubes tied and only have sex with infertile men?
The double standard here is amazing.
This is a highly underrated comment.
Excellent point.
It's actually a ridiculous point since women can't just walk into the doctors office and demand her tubes be tied.
Yeah so I gotta say this is the first one where I wholeheartedly disagree with you guys. The whole idea of “don’t have sex if you don’t want a kid. If you have sex you better expect you might get pregnant and then you’re 100% forced to have and take care of a kid” seems VERY similar to the other side saying women shouldn’t be allowed to have an abortion because “you had sex”. A guy can take ALL precautions, do everything possible, and still get a girl pregnant. So because he’s taking care of his biological need in a safe, consensual way, that means that he’s stuck with a kid for 20 years?
Like come on, we have to be more advanced than that. If both people go into it agreeing “we don’t want kids and this is ‘to fulfill our biological needs, nothing more’”, then they should each have a say in whether they need to contribute for 20 years. Just because a woman decides “I now randomly want this kid”, the guy really should have more of a say than “fuck you, you’re responsible now and get ready for a multi-decade commitment”. Idk I love you guys but this seemed really regressive and shortsighted. I really think you guys should rethink this one
J Paterson no, I heard them, and then also heard them clearly say “you can go to court and sever parental rights if the WOMAN agrees and signs off to it”. So a woman can decide if she wants a child? She can decide if she gets an abortion? But a man can’t have consensual sex with a woman while taking precautions, and yet he is somehow liable for a pregnancy? What kind of woman would actually “sign off” on severing a man’s obligation, when she can just use him for 20 years for free money? Literally none. This is such a nonsensical, shallow argument.
@@philorgneopolotin8762 No, the caller made this claim, Matt did not try to specify what the laws were (they vary from place to place). I have NEVER seen where the mother has to agree for you to give up parental rights, but there are times and places where this impacts your ability to interact with the child but does not take away the mandate for child support.
@@randolphphillips3104 Then Matts reaction should be that he doesn't know all the details and that it may vary depending where you live. This "tough shit" act in this specific situation is, to be bluntly, rather stupid and contrary to everything we know about Matt's views. I mean, look at the comment section... I have never seen something like this.
@@philorgneopolotin8762 he also repeatedly said you should have to pay, its the adult thing to do......I couldn't disagree more
@@MrXantrias He did say exactly that about laws to terminate, watch it again. He also said that in his opinion it didn't matter, and the "tough shit" was about parental liability and life not being fair sometimes.
If I want to abort , I should have the right to do so . But if I want to keep the baby against the father's wishes ,I should be able carry the pregnancy to term but should not be able to force the father to take care of the baby. Having the baby was my decision ,so its my responsibility. Well a decent guy would help out but not because I am forcing him to since he didnt force me to abort the baby or carry the baby. All my choice.
This one gets it.
I agree with you. But according to Matt, you're a "dudebro". 😂
Take this to a family law lawyer, and he will tell you that the state will now allow this, because the mother CANNOT sign away the rights of the child by absolving the father of support payments.
Plus, the state is VERY interested in keeping women and children off the dole, and they'll do whatever it takes to achieve this. Even if it means death to some fathers.
Matt really demonstrated inconsistency here.
Exactly.
Sex isn't consent to be a parent.
*Unless you're male.*
"I bet there's a quick answer to your question! If there isn't, we'll postpone the conversation because we're low on time.." then the video is over 21 mins....lol
Your point being..??? What?
@@krackerman3628 point is matt is a dumbass
@@Xarai At least he acts like one when this subject comes up.
That happens all the time nearly every episode
Matt probably forgot about the time and got VERY emotional and irrational. My uneducated guess on this is that Matt was abandoned as a child, and this question struck a chord with him.
I am, unfortunately, in a position similar to the one Tyler described. My girlfriend and I both lost our jobs due to covid, although I am in the process of getting a new one, and are both living with our parents. If I get the job I am applying for, once we factor in the cost of living around my area on top of the average costs of raising a child, we would still be losing 15,000-20,000 a year for an estimated 8-10 years until my raises would "break-even." After several weeks of discussing the situation, she has agreed with me that this couldn't have happened at a worse time for us. Despite that, she refuses to change her mind but, in fact, wants more kids which would further the debt to an insurmountable level.
In some of our discussions on what to do, she has said things like "she wished she hadn't told me but just left, so she didn't have to deal with my negativity towards the situation" and that "she was done with me and I would never be a part of this kids life" even though I've told her repeatedly that while I disagree with the decision, I want the best life for my kid.
Yes, I consented to have sex. Yes, I fully acknowledge that it is her body and her choice. I was aware that sex could lead to pregnancy, but it turns out I'm just the special 1% that the birth control failed on haha. I would say that I don't feel I consented to be a father but will own up to my responsibilities anyway. I also feel that in some way I've also been coerced, (from her previously mentioned statements), and stripped of any decision making power over the situation. She seems to completely disregard fact-based arguments and the overall situation in favor of the perception that having a child is what will "get her life back on track."
I don't know what the most correct answer to this situation is and I would never want her to make her feel like she has to abort the pregnancy just because I don't want it. Either way, it will be a huge, life-altering decision but my anecdotal experience as of now is that it sucks I will be essentially forced into financial responsibility for at least 18 years when I am currently struggling to support myself.
Geez man, that’s a shite position she’s trying to lay on you. Whatever decision you ultimately make, I hope things work out for you.
The "cost of a child" is a grossly inflated number used when fining men. I have kids. They are not nearly that expensive even when taken great care of, insurance etc. Depends on your situation. After diapers an possibly formula depending on choice, its mainly a lot of milk and grains for several years before the finger foods start. Thats actually very cheap. Mine don't even have to wear 2nd hand clothes. Ever. I accepted baby gifts, used consignment shops for age dependent things like strollers etc and passed good stuff along to other parents. All I'm saying is you guys will probably do better than you fear.
This shit is so fucked. I’m almost glad I’m entirely unlovable now, I’ll never have to deal with this. But it seems obvious to me that vasectomies should be way WAY more common, and maybe even available in high school, like during a summer break so you are guaranteed to have time to recover
@@ajclements4627 Much appreciated
I see your concern but come on man. That's your child. You can't treat him like a car that needs maintainance. If you try hardyou'llsucceed, you'll be able to find a job and live through it. My mother did it with 3 kids alone, you can surely do to. Stay strong.
wow I actually disagree with Matt on something.
yes, I was gonna say the same thing. I think iz is the first time I ever clearly disagreed with him.
Another vehemently disagree with Matt on this one. I must admit I was surprised and somewhat shocked at his inflexibility and unwillingness to even consider that he might be wrong.
@@timothymccracken So much for being a skeptic.
and these comments, I see there are several people who just want to f*** without consequences. I guess if you get hiv, you want that to go away too
@@nuorigin What if a married couple in the low income range who already has six children they cannot raise themselves without financial support from tax money wants "to f*** without considering the consequences" ... OK with that?
"Sex isn't consent to parenthood, unless you're a man then it is unless the mother relinquishes you of your responsibilities."
In other words, sex for a man is consent to parenthood.
Being forced to use your body and work harder than you otherwise would for 18 years is not as bad as being forced to carry a baby for 10 months? Okay, but which is worse doesn't determine what your rights are.
The fact it's worse to cut someone's hand off instead of just a finger without their consent doesn't mean it's okay to cut someone's finger off without consent.
This is simple special pleading.
Not to mention that as Matt himself has said before, a child should not be a _punishment._ That's how you get a toxic family situation, this isn't some car that needs money to be repaired, it's a goddamn human being.
Antidotes?
Non-penetrative sex
Same sex
Condoms all the time, for the entire time
Reversible vasectomy
No man EVER has to be a parent if he doesn't want to be. Don't impregnate someone. End of story.
Like, it astounds me men don't understand they are in full control of whether/how sperm leaves their bodies.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 you're right, we should force all women to only play with themselves or have homosexual sex if they don't want to get pregnant.
Oh sorry you said men, so that makes it okay right?
@@ThatWriterWriter1 "If you don't want to be a father, fuck another dude" is basically the same as "if you want to be married, marry someone of the opposite sex"
@Steve Doud Sorry but the woman is deciding whether the pregnancy comes to term.
Unilaterally deciding some one else's rights isn't equality.
Your position is sexist. You have different standards of responsibility based on sex.
Women have options when it comes to choosing to be a parent. Men do not. It is certainly not equal Matt and you know it.
OMFG: "If he's broke he shouldn't be fucking." Well shit Matt, if she's broke, she shouldn't be fucking.
Sure they do have a choice. Don’t have sex if you know you do not want a child. It’s really that simple.
@@skel760 Here is a challenge for you. List the number of options a woman has and then list the number of options a man has. if you do it right, you'll see what I mean
@@chickenman297 Because she is the one who physically endures it. Wth is so hard to comprehend about that? If you willingly have sex with a woman who you have no intentions with, eg you just want to get off on her body, there are consequences if you impregnate her. Why should you be able to just walk? You made a choice knowing this could be an out come but you went ahead anyway for your own satisfaction. You want your fun with no responsibility. She can go pound sand, right? What is so hard for you to grasp? I don’t get it. Grow up.
@@chickenman297I think if you’re being honest with yourself, you’d realise that life is tough for both men and women, and that both have choices to make, although the nature of both the ‘toughness’ and choices may be different between the sexes. You may feel that men are ‘short-changed’ in certain ways, but women are also short-changed in other ways. Men and women are equal in the sense that life is tough for both sexes.
@@williamrisbridger60 Then why do we almost never hear about the issues that men face compared to the issues women face? This is the inequality that does the most damage. I don't feel that men are "short-changed", I know this for a fact and it is very rarely addressed. I know for a fact that women are also "short-changed" and it is in my face almost every day. My other question is why you felt the need to put it in the terms of " _feel_ that men are short-changed" and "women _are_ also short-changed"? Is there some unconscious bias (as the radicals would put it) at work there?
These are honest questions not meant to belittle you or anything. Just trying to make you think about it.
I'm a big fan of the show and Matt in general, but man I could barely sit through this one. First dislike I've ever given here.
His inability to listen and understand the points of his interlocutor was embarrassing.
His arguments were straight up copy pasted from pro lifers, as was his emotional tone.
No one, man or woman should be forced into parenthood.
If a woman gets pregnant and the man for whatever reason is not ready to be a father, he shouldn't be forced into fatherhood.
If the woman is fine with being a single parent, then that is her choice, her money and her life.
The only situation I can come up with on short notice is if the woman lied or changed her mind so that the man thought the couple would not keep the baby of a pregnancy resulted at the time of conception and HER choice overwrites and now adds the responsibility he was deceived he was rid off. But if there is no evidence the case becomes he said - she said and that doesn't hold up legally for any of them and defaults to her bodily autonomy rights and his responsibility for having sex that *COULD* lead to a pregnancy. Also this doesn't mean a woman can go around having consequence free sex since if impregnated and she didnt want to carry it she would have to have the abortion procedure - which cant be a pleasant/insignificant thing physically or mentally.
@@chainclaw07 Yes, the woman isn't free of consequences, but _she alone_ determines the consequences for her _and_ the potential father, no matter what... That's the problem!
If it's the woman's right to determine what happens to her, then it should be the right of the man to do the same.
Right now she's the one that determines parts of what happens the next 2 decades of someone else's life!
@@se7enhaender both run the risk of becoming parents by having sex. That's just a fact. IF we look at it that both have a responsibility to a potential child then yes, women are granted more control in this situation BUT it stems from the same principal of bodily autonomy which men are also afforded those rights but doesn't apply since the fetus isnt connected to them....
@@chainclaw07 I'm not arguing against bodily autonomy, so let's not go there.
Calling them parents by default is poisoning the well a little bit in light of what the discussion is about... let's say both risk producing a child.
Now what's your case for determining part of someone else's life?
@@se7enhaender I dont know these laws but I imagine them to be that the parent of a child is responsible for its wellbeing ... both of them. Since they procreated to bring it into the world. Thats the parental responsibility bit - if a woman OR a man doesn't want to be in its life it is mandated by law that that parent provide child support for the baby. However - inarguably the woman despite any notion prior to conception has a situation with HER body which is solely up to her to decide upon. Meaning she could've said she wanted a baby and then after the fact change that. The father isnt entitled an offspring based on that.
So while both have parental responsibility from conception (since consenting adults should know that sex risks pregnancy) the woman is afford more control based on the pregnancy happens to her body
There are Scandinavian countries where the father can opt out of fatherhood, but the balance comes with government provided free childcare.
God forbid we make the prolifers put their money where their mouth is
@@sebastep Its a false dicotomy. prochoice v pro life. Its actually prochoice v anti choice. Many people who are prochoice are also prolife. "Prolifers" are advocating for antichoice. Other wise theyd be advocating for these social programs as well. They do not.
@@jamesonrosen1773 plus, pro-lifers (in the US) are often pro-war (which kills people) and pro-death penalty (which kills people). They're really more pro-forced-birth.
As someone living in a scandinavian country I would like to see proof of that.
@@venga3 Males cannot have abortions, they can however have vasectomies.
The only issue I have with Matt's response is that when discussion the right to abortion, he's arguing from the perspective of moral principles, but when discussing men giving up parental rights he refers to laws instead.
So from the female perspective he's talking about what should be, but from the male perspective he's discussion what is. It would be a better discussion if he addressed what should be with respect to giving up parental responsibilities, not what the laws might currently say.
Yep. And this is the first time I've disagreed with Matt and had to thumbs down the vid. The caller didn't do a good job of explaining and Matt didn't try to clarify.
No, in both cases, he's talking about what should be the case. What the law should be.
Matt focuses on the the male’s say on the fetus. The caller never said anything of the sort. Matt resorts to name calling (deadbeat father) and trying to act as the law was something that can’t be wrong or should just be dismissed as “tough shit”. He says “we don’t make laws about who is broke”. We do in fact make laws that change with the economic standing of the person involved. Matt is wrong about this. One of the rare times I can say that.
I feel that Matt uses reality and well being as base. In this case, the laws protect the well being of a baby and possibly the mother. So I do t think that Matt went off too far from his standards. People have to understand that not all situations are a win-win. I agree that if a men impregnates a woman, he is responsible of raising the child. The well being of the most vulnerable human being is being protected.
@@cletokings4302 An example would be a one night stand and years later the guy gets hit with child care. I don't know how often that happens.
Wow, Matt really sucked on this one. Instead of having a conversation about male parental rights he went nuts about the womans right to keep the child. That wasn't even in question.
I agree with the caller about having a discussion about it atleast. It is not a clear issue, but if a woman has the right to abort a child, which she should have, then atleast a man who doesn't want the child might be justified in some circumstances to chose not to be a parent.
He definitely didn't want to acknowledge the double standard there. It also annoyed me how Matt tried to make the argument so simplistic when it clearly is not.
The person carrying the baby ALWAYS gets the choice. It's their body. PERIOD.
He didn't "go nuts about the woman's right to 'keep the child.'" He SAID, it is the pregnant person's right to choose whatever is RIGHT FOR THEM AS THE BODY CARRYING the foetus.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 where in any of these comments did anyone say a woman didn't have the right?
We need uterus tansplants for men!!!
@@zatoichiMiyamoto there working on that
Wow, I'm pretty disappointed in this argument. Seems like matt was totally missing the point and didn't take time to see both sides of the argument
I agree. Matt got hung up on the abortion argument. I also think the caller didn't do a good job of explaining their issue.
@@miconis123 true, but outside looking in his argument seems obvious.
@@miconis123
Bottom line....a man doesn't have reproductive rights.
What else other than abortion pertains to reproductive rights?
@@joshriver75 It can be argued that an abortion is relinquishing the rights of parenthood and if women can do so then men should be able to as well. Both go into sex willingly (usually, rape is a different story) yet only one has all the power over the other's future? Not a fair system if you ask me. Father should be able to relinquish rights up until a reasonable amount of time before the point that a woman can get an abortion so she can then decide whether or not to be a single parent.
@@bpdmf2798 no a man doesn't get to tell a woman whether or not she can have a child.
Only 5 minutes in, but so far Matt sounds like the anti-woman crowd regarding the consequences of sex. How is "If you have sex and the woman gets pregnant, assuming she doesn't abort, you're going to be a parent regardless of what you want" different from "if you have sex and the woman gets pregnant, you're going to be a parent regardless of what you want"? Ignoring the options to abort, obviously. Don't they both boil down to "actions have consequences and you're responsible for your actions and their consequences"?
@Patrick Names Well that's the contention. If women have an opt out option, this guy is saying men should too. "People have to be responsible for their actions" is literally an argument against abortions as well, should we disallow abortions?
@Patrick Names Only women should be held responsible for the action of chosing to make a baby? What? Your first statement, that men are held responsible for the choices of the woman, is the part the caller (and people in the comments) is saying shouldn't be allow in the exact same way a woman shouldn't be forced to have a child just because her husband/boyfriend wants it.
@Patrick Names Ah, yes, the good ol' "when someone seeks clarification, disregard them" technique. Welp, here's hoping an intelligent person comes along.
@Patrick Names Same to you, madame! Except I'm asking real questions and you can't be bothered to flex that atrophied thinky-muscle. Begone.
@Patrick Names - "No we shouldn't disallow abortions, the argument isn't analogous in that situation. As things stand men are held responsible for women's actions. Both parties make an embryo, only the woman has the choice to make a baby, and thus only the woman should be held responsible for that action." So fucking true!!!
Gotta say Matt didn't cover himself in glory here, I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions, but saying 'well if you don't want kids, don't fuck' is exactly what pro-lifers say to women about getting abortions, and I'm not sure how Matt didn't think about that. It's the exact same argument.
Gotta disagree with you. Pro-lifers say women shouldn't fuck if they don't want the consequences, but never mention that men shouldn't fuck if they don't want the consequences. All the "fun" is left to the men, while all the responsibility is left to the women.
@@cbaker71476 men has to pay child support
@@Brandon-tz5pn the caller's point was that there should be some mechanism by which men absolve themselves of all responsibility. Yes, men "has" to pay child support. Because they are responsible for a human life entering the world.
@@cbaker71476 Pro-lifers are generally heard saying that to women because it's the woman's choice to have the abortion, but many pro-lifers also advocate for abstinence, which is aimed at men and woman, so really they are saying the same thing to men as well.
On the point about absolving responsibility, people are disagreeing with Matt because he's saying men shouldn't be allowed to absolve their responsibility while there are several ways for women to do just that e.g. abortion, adoption etc. Both parties are responsible for human life entering the world, but both parties should also be allowed to say they don't want that responsibility. Seems like Matt is all for choice when it comes to pretty much every social issue except this one. He says that carrying a child to term changes a woman's body and her life, it also completely changes the man's life too, but he shouldn't be allowed a say in all this?
Not at all what he said nor meant, revist what he said. He said their are alternatives, and he also could have brought up just basic trust that the male and female will come to the middle and agree to abort before having sex if the case arises. Thats called maturity when dealing with something like sex, its not just fun and squirt sports fellas. Matts point is just know what your getting into and communicate with your partner before hand.
I find it interesting that Matt's arguments seem to be the same kind of arguments used in pro-life to explain why a woman shouldn't be able to abort.
"If you didn't want to get pregnant you shouldn't have had sex, this is the consequence of your actions, if you don't like it, tough shit"
"If you didn't want to be a parent you shouldn't have had sex, this is the consequence of your actions, if you don't like it, tough shit"
"If you didn't want to (get pregnant/be a parent) You should have used contraception, or had sex with someone (without testicles/without a womb) or just played with yourself"
They both kept bringing up 'It sounds like you just want to achieve consequence-free sex'. Hey guys?...That's word for word the arguments pro-life will use against abortions. I'm really surprised that they don't realize that hypocrisy. 'Oh women just want to have abortions so they can have all the sex they want consequence free'. That's the kind of thing they'd _immediately_ jump on if someone pro-life said it, yet here they are using that exact same straw-man on someone else. If you know it's a shitty argument and a strawman as you've said before many times, why the fuck are you both using it yourselves?
"If he was broke, he shouldn't have been fuckin'!" - Matt
If that sentence had EVER come out of a caller arguing pro-life, Matt would have torn it down in a second for being both a shit argument and in general a shitty thing to say to someone.
While I don't have it on hand, I recall more than once Matt saying that a child should not be a _punishment._ This is something I agree with, it's an important sentiment because if you make a child a punishment, you're setting up an unhealthy situation where a child is going to grow up facing resentment from one of their parents based solely on their existence. That's the end result of making a child a punishment, _whether the parent in question is male or female._
Over and over Matt kept on bringing up the woman's right to carry the child if she chooses. Not _once_ did the caller say that was the problem but he just kept bringing it up over and over. He claims that no one is required to be a parent, yet goes back on that if the parent in question is male. Rather than address it he instead just poisoned the well by saying things like 'So you want to be a deadbeat father'? That's some really scummy argumentation and honestly I expect better than that from Matt.
Getting into an accident and paying for the damages is not equivalent to being required to pay to support a child that you didn't consent to for the next 18 or so years.
Something Matt said:
"Someone being able to abdicate their rights as a parent, what that means is that that could represent an undue influence to force that person carrying a child, to terminate" (generous quote given the well-poisoning he did just before it)
But Matt, didn't you just say five minutes prior: "If he was broke, he shouldn't have been fuckin'!"
So you're not going to say the same thing to the woman? "Got pregnant and can't afford it yourself? Welp, tough shit you shouldn't have been fuckin'!"
I think it's safe to say Matt would rightly call someone saying that to a woman to be a disgusting piece of shit. That's why I find it so shocking to hear those exact words unironically coming out of his mouth.
What it smacks of is "A child should _never_ be a punishment...unless you're a man, in which case your child is absolutely a punishment". That's fucked up. Same with his constant poisoning of the well, assuming that _every_ male who can't support a child is just some deadbeat going 'Welp, I don't want any of this, fuck you bitch!'. It's the kind of inflammatory language that, again, pro-life uses saying 'All those sluts just want to fuck all the men they want without taking responsibility for it!'. If it's misogynist to use that king of argument aimed at a woman, how is it not equally misandrist to use it against a male?
It isn't about simply giving people free-reign to, at any point, just toss their responsibilities away. It's about providing options to ensure that the decision to carry a child to term is made with the best information available. Here's a better system, having it so that both parties can opt _in_ to parental responsibilities, not having to opt _out_ of them. Woman doesn't wish for parental responsibilities? By all means, your choice. Men doesn't wish for parental responsibilities? Same right to chose. If both parents wish to accept responsibilities? Great! They can both opt into it legally and both be responsible. What's more, if a woman's decision to carry a child to term or not hinges entirely on having the support of two parental figures vs one, you can opt in _before_ pregnancy occurs. You then have peace of mind and can plan accordingly while avoiding the problem of the... "dude bros" as Matt put it. Otherwise, you have to plan based on the possibility of there only being the support of one parent, if the other did not yet consent to parenthood.
Maybe instead of hurling personal ad hominem assaults on his character ; why not just address his arguments. His system sounds miles better than the one we currently have. Why is it okay for women to have the freedom to consent to being parents and then not okay for men? I assumed that Matt cared about what's fair since he's on record saying that he's a secular humanist. So ask you, Matt and all of his supporters ; what exactly is fair about this arrangment?
Well said
I was going to type some of my thoughts into a comment because this segment really seemed sideways compared to the usually rock solid reasoning and logic I usually hear from Matt. You're comment hit every point I had stewing in my head so I'll just agree, thumbs up.
@@ravinglibertopian3226 : your answer is #16:15
@iDisagree I see you do the Matt Dillahunty style argument too. Listen to only the start of what someone is saying and then ignore the rest.
I think Matt is being incredibly hypocritical. He said (regarding men) "if you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime." That is exactly the same argument pro-lifers use against abortion rights. And that women just want consequence-free sex.
I don't think sex should be viewed as a crime or immoral. And I don't like the idea that parenthood is a punishment.
Matt also freaked out when the caller brought up the possibility of parenthood having financial burdens that a father may not be ready for or capable of handling. I wonder if Matt would consider financial instability a good reason for a woman to terminate a pregnancy.
Biological males can't carry foetuses. You're missing the point, UTTERLY.
A biological male who can impregnate someone has to think BEFORE the act if they want to ever/now/next year be a parent. If they answer 'no' to that, then as the one person in the equation who can make the other person pregnant, it is their RESPONSIBILITY and RIGHT to STOP before they do make someone pregnant. There's no offspring prior to sex so prior to sex is when biological males have to make choices.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 So a woman is not? Really, that's the point. If a woman can opt out, why a man shouldn't for the same reason?
We still require 2 people to have a pregnancy, it's not just the man.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 You're the one missing MY point. The same exact arguments you're using to deny men choice about parenthood can be used to argue against women's rights. Let me demonstrate with your last comment:
A biological *female* who can become pregnant has to think BEFORE they act if they want to ever/now/next year be a parent. If they answer 'no' to that, then as the one person in the equation who can become pregnant, it is their RESPONSIBILITY and RIGHT to STOP before they do get themselves pregnant. There's no offspring prior to sex so prior to sex is when biological females have to make choices.
Let me lay out my claim as simply as I can: Women should have complete control over whether they carry a baby to term or not. Women *and* men should both have the ability to renounce their parental rights/responsibilities.
@@ThatWriterWriter1, everything you just said applies to the woman as well.... The difference is, the woman gets to choose whether they want to keep the pregnancy and they get to force the unwilling partner into it. How do you feel about that happening the other way?
@@scottriftwater4387 No. I'm an educated adult with an opinion and I don't respect idiotic ad hominem
Normally I agree with matt, but he seems to be using the same argument as the "pro" life people. I agree with the caller in this one.
The parental obligation is to the fetus. That is equal for the partners, although the female has the far greater burden of gestation.
Both have the same basic obligations to raise the child.
That the female may terminate the pregnancy ending the obligations of both is a separable issue. That abortion has a side effect of ending the parental obligations of both is not pertinent.
So the man should be able to disown the baby and walk away?
@@histreeonics7770 Word.
@@histreeonics7770 The parental obligations _only_ exist if a child does. The child is not created at conception, a fertilized egg is. If the female in question wishes to take on the personal responsibilities involved in creating a child from that fertilized egg, it stands to reason that the obligation for support be hers, and not automatically applied to the one who had no choice in the matter of the pregnancy.
@@histreeonics7770 You have no obligation to raise a child. You only have a legal obligation to make sure the child is cared for. If the donor ops to put the child up for adoption and the carrier rejects the adoption proposal it then becomes the females responsibility to care for the child, by themselves. Both parents should be able to opt out direct care of the child. All that’s means is someone has to care for the child, foster care and adoption is the default option. We make a legal requirement that a child be cared for so them the legal precedent for child that is uncared for is to be cared for by the legal entity (the state).
You should be under no obligation to the carrier. You only have the obligation to make sure the child is cared for.
Love Matt Dilahunty, agree with about 99% of what he says....
This is the 1% I don’t agree with him...
of course that is entirely fine , I disagree with him more like 15% of the time....he is just a man like all of us and not God., .hehe
Same.
This is really a bad take from Matt
Just ask him to say the same thing to a woman, he'd probably say that's sexist
@Dave the cowboi
. Why do you think that? The base principle for the discussion is that a woman has all the rights with regards to her body (and the use of it). I think everyone should be able to agree on that, and if not the discussion ends there since there's absolutely no good argument for that position.
If there's agreement on that part, how can you not agree with Matt that there's no way out of that. (Apart from the hypothetical rape of the man - in that case i would agree that the man can't be held responsible and if cases exists where the man is held responsible the law is wrong, lots of laws around the world is just wrong (in my opinion) but you can still discuss what's right or wrong from a humanistic standpoint.
@@olejorgensen1964 because the argument "when you have sex you have to live with the consequences" seems to not apply for women.
women will not say oh im not ready for the pregnancy, they say im not ready for the child. so the pregnancy is not the issue here.
ole jørgensen 1) a female knows the risks of having sex, and she’s aware that she may become pregnant, even with every precaution taken. 2) a man knows the risks of having sex, and understands that pregnancy make occur in the same way. 3) they have sex, and even though they’re both equal, and they both knew about the risks beforehand, the woman now has a “get out of jail free” card and can opt out of parenthood if she wishes, but the man has absolutely no such option. And let’s not pretend that the majority, if even a semi-moderate percentage, of pregnancies are aborted because “a woman doesn’t want a parasite in her body” for a few months.
The bigger issue here is that a) she isn’t financially ready for a 20 year commitment b) she isn’t ready to give up her freedom and sacrifice her personal life for 20 years yet, or c) there are unforeseen circumstances that stand in the way of this pregnancy coming to term. None of those have anything to do with a “parasite” in her body, but I’d be willing to get the VAST majority of abortions occur because of one of those 3. And I will say, I believe every woman has the right to abort any pregnancy for any reason before it becomes viable, but to say that a woman is just this naive, innocent kid who didn’t realize the risks is not just insulting and degrading to the female sex, but it’s dishonest to the actual issue at hand. They were BOTH aware of the risks beforehand, and the woman has an automatic way out for any sort of reason she feels necessary, but a man is absolutely stuck. It’s hypocritical, disingenuous and completely regressive to the modern society we’re trying to mold.
@@philorgneopolotin8762 That was a very long way of saying that the woman has a choice and that the man doesn't if she gets pregnant. I agree - and so what.? That's exactly the point, its now the woman's choice, it has to be and there's really nothing to compare this with. They should both have been more careful - but now it her choice and only hers. I really really don't see why that's hypocritical, disingenuous and completely regressive
@@ReyusD. You just can't compare having to go through a pregnancy as a woman and being a man. You just can't.
Not often i disagree with matt, less often i think he's being obtuse. Doesn't want an analogy then whips out a terrible baseball analogy of his own. Not sure if the guy couldn't clarify enough or matt just doesn't want to see it... it is possible to agree on 2 aspects of an issue, then raise a 3rd consideration that has not yet been addressed.
Equal rights over pregnancy looks like this: both parties have choice to be involved or not. Each party has to realize the other party's choice affects the burden they would have to carry. Yes, each party's choice has influence over the other. Still not entirely equal options available to both parties, as carrying to term is not a joint decision, and it shouldn't be, but as close as seems possible.
Furthermore, to bring the serial extremist example into the discussion as a baseline to determine all male rights; THAT was dishonest.
Have you considered that BOTH parties are responsible for a child that they have conceived? We also grant rights of bodily autonomy to both but it's only applicable to a fertile female(just terms dont fucking flame me over them) since a pregnancy against her will would go against that bodily autonomy. Let's say that under the law she still wants to carry it to term but NOT take care of it... wouldn't she be obligated under the law to pay child support then?? THAT'S what I took away from it. And sure it's not quite fair that the mother could choose for abortion regardless of the fathers wishes. Lets hypothesized that a method of extracting the fetus and carry it to term in a jar existed - then could she be held to the same standard of child support as a father? I dont think so based on that the procedure would be invasive and no one could make her have it instead of a terminating abortion so she could possibly bargain away her responsibility of parenthood in that exchange...
Nope, make a baby raise a baby (or agree to adoption). Taking a risk and then wanting a get out of jail free card when it happens is fucked up. The ability to terminate a pregnancy is NOT about whether or not the mom can bail on their responsibility, it is about body autonomy. The father cannot and does not have the right to force the mother to do something with HER body. That is it. Because the guy is not in the same situation is, to use Matt's term, "tough shit, life's not fair".
@@randolphphillips3104
It's also about bodily autonomy for the male too.
Her decision, which of course she gets to make unilaterally, should not result in the forcible enslavement of the male, which is against his bodily autonomy rights.
If you think consent to sex =\= consent to parenthood, then this is the only acceptable balance.
It's laughable how matt, and others, failed to realize this.
@@randolphphillips3104 "The ability to terminate a pregnancy is NOT about whether or not the mom can bail on their responsibility, it is about body autonomy." Maybe not from a perspective of moral argument, but what about the possibility and actuality of what's unfolded in the real world? You think pregnant women are always and only making the decision based on the body autonomy moral argument?
@@jdsartre9520 WHY they make their decision is their business. THE RIGHT for them to make the decision is body autonomy. Body autonomy is the moral reason that they have the right. Making the choice to have an abortion or not based on body autonomy is a non-sensical argument.
8:43 Matt:”and you don’t contribute to that so you want to be a deadbeat father.”
Me as the caller: “tough shit” 🤷🏻♂️
"That's fucking dishonest as hell." We agree Matt. You were not an honest interlocutor in this conversation. You either dishonestly or unknowingly misrepresented Tyler's question, changed standards for evaluating his side/your side, and dismissed his arguments out of hand with no direct refutation. I expect more from you at this point.
Yeah this is where Matt and I depart. Theres a strange inequality here. The argument hes making to Tyler here sounds eerily similar to pro-life arguments. A pro lifer can also say that she knew what the consequences might be going into it and now she is responsible. This is not the case. If women can freely choose between parenthood and nonparenthood after already the fact, so should the man. This is equality.
@@f6y7t5 yeah I can very much picture a pro-life person saying something to the effect of “you can’t have an abortion, you had sex and you knew the risks. You’re trying to have consequence free sex.”. To be clear I’m %100 down with bodily autonomy and a womens right to have an abortion, but Matt being so flippantly dismissive here is pretty distasteful.
@@kevind6723 no.
Both parents have obligations to their children because that child has a right to parental support from both parents. The obligation to a child is the consequence of having sex. That obligation does not include the obligation to provide access to your internal organs for either parent. Any parent can refuse to donate and there is no crime.
The prolifer is saying the consequence of having sex obligated is an obligation to a fetus in ways that no parent is obligated, and what’s more, to create an obligation to the fetus ONLY for the woman. They don’t argue that a man is required to provide food or medical care to his fetus through the woman, nor that he be required to donate blood to her to keep her alive should she need a transfusion (which happens occasionally) to biologically support to his fetus.
That’s the nuance you are missing, mate
@@johnlewis9266 I understand the nuance you’re describing. I implied the argument is similar, never once did I say this is the exact same argument that pro-life people use. Furthermore, I think you missed the point of my comment entirely, which is ironic seeing as how you say I’m missing some kind of nuance here. The point of my comment wasn’t about what the host said, but more so the utter unwillingness to engage in a conversation. They basically belittled dude, just told him “tough shit”, and basically refused to engage in any conversation. To me caller seemed genuine in trying to figure this issue out, and they treated him like shit and were insanely condescending.
@@kevind6723 they gave him ample opportunity to make a case for why he isn’t culpable in making someone pregnant when he knew about the risks of the secondary outcome.
He refused to make an argument for why he isn’t culpable, or how he could possibly be a victim when it was his actions that caused the entire thing.
Instead he kept coming back to why it wasn’t fair that he doesn’t have the opportunity to avoid consequences for his actions. That’s nothing more than a whine, and the host was right to tell him “tough shit”.
When someone is refusing to engage the issue, there is no reason not to point that out.
America’s infant mortality rate is 19th in the world. Health care in the USA is not as good as you think.
Alternatively, it's as good as they think but not nearly as available to everyone.
Citation please. The sources I was able to find showed us 170 or better counting from worst to best. Also, not sure how you can turn less then 6 per 1000 live births is an indictment of western medicine. (For comparison, infant mortality in the 1950's was around 40%.)
@@randolphphillips3104 the USA is in fact 33 in the world. The infant mortality rate has come down slower than other countries. In 1960 it was 10/1000, in 2019 it was 5.8/1000, Japan is the best 1.8/1000, the average is 3.4/1000, 71% better than USA.
@Jonny Sevent Sorry, typo, 4% (40 in 1000). Fixed.
@@paulmelville2126 Asked for the citation to your source, and instead you just make more assertions.
God, I hate Matt when he's like this. The guy has a slightly confused, but reasonable question. He's polite, he's articulate. FFS let him finish his thought before snapping at him mid-sentence? Or how hard would it be to say something like "Look, in an ideal world the woman would ask the guy what he thinks and at least take that into consideration. Of course, when push comes to shove, you don't really have a right to anything"
Matt has simply adopted a straightforward philosophy: "Thou Shalt Not Suffer The Stupid To Live, Nor Give Quarter To Same". We live in a world where 'stupidity' and/or 'stupidness' have been give a platform and allowed to freely blossom for FAR too long. Matt has simply decided that he's had enough of that tribe, and will give them as little oxygen as possible. To do otherwise is just a waste of time. 100% of the time.
@@CaptainCanuck63 I couldn't disagree more. The format of this show is a dialog. Matt gives good enough lectures but this isn't one.
Now I agree that you don't have to let every lunatic ramble on for half an hour. But again: This guy is polite and articulate. For fucking sake let him articulate his thoughts and then respectfully show him where you disagree. He did absolutely nothing to warrant this kind of behavior on Matt's side.
And frankly, this kind of egotistic outbreaks is why I stopped watching Matt altogether. (Not that he cares)
@@Ezechielpitau Because this isn't a platform for folks to preach and proselytize and waste the audience's time. He's dealt with these arguments before, we have as well. So far, he's been correct in his interruptions so as to clarify and straighten out what's going on. They have limited time and have other callers to talk. If people don't have the thick skin to handle that. They shouldn't be calling in to begin with and he has been nice to people who have been having trouble articulating their points, and let them go gently as a result. What I as others like Matt don't like, is something called "tone policing".
@@romankvapil9184 well, have a look around the comments here. Although there is no right or wrong, I'm clearly not alone with my opinion here.
@@Ezechielpitau Nothing totally wrong in YOUR comment thread. But there's alot of hate/trolling from the pro-life groups posing as pro-choice in taking his words out of context, bitching about his "tone" when it's somehting he's done for a long time, but for some reason isn't given quarter to this one when it's just like every other dumb caller coming on. It's something I can't stand when it comes to dishonest bullshit to push their preferred narrative when they can't make a solid case for their position.
This comment section restores my faith in humanity just a little bit
Same
Same
There's still plenty of Matt fanboys here that don't see his logic errors and overall stupidity on this.
Yep, it's good to know the whole audience isn't just ready to swallow Matt's dictation.
Did you just say faith😨
1st time I've ever just straight up disagreed with Matt on something. Idc if the woman keeps the child or aborts the child for whatever reason she wants to hell she could flip a coin and be like heads or tails.
And Idc if the man wants to be involved in any capacity or not. But both should be able to make the call. The only discrepancy comes in is if the woman doesn't want and the man does and at that point and only that point is it tough shit for the man. Other than that both parties should have the right to opt out individually.
The two can discuss, but ultimately the woman should have full control over whether she keeps the child or not.
@@jakethewolfie119 I agree, But that's a separate issue as to whether or not the man should be required to be a parent or provide support in any way shape or form.
Here are a few scenarios.
1) Both parties agree to have a child both parties bear responsibility.
2)Both parties Agree not to have a child, neither party bears responsibility
3) Only one Party agrees to have a child, only that party is required to bear responsibility.
Neither party should be able to force responsibilities onto the other without their consent.
@@Discordian_23 I think that is the best, simple argument I’ve heard on this topic. Well said.
You basically wrote what I wanted to. I very rarely disagree with Matt, but I do as well in this case. Around 7:10 and 10:24, he even goes as far as just about saying “Just don’t have sex.” I’m quite sure that even he doesn’t agree with that himself, that’s just utter nonsense. It’s the equivalent of promoting abstinence in sex education, which is known to be completely ridiculous and ineffective.
If you have sex while using contraceptives, you make it quite clear from the outset that you do not want to become a parent. Of course, if a pregnancy results from having sex, it’s totally up to the woman to decide what to do with that pregnancy. But it should be up to the man as well as up to the woman to opt out of parenthood. Say the woman doesn’t want to abort the pregnancy, but she does not want to raise the kid, then she can give up the child for adoption. The caller is just pointing out that this asymmetry is a problem, and I agree. I don’t even know whether there is a good way to fix is, but Matt’s refusal to acknowledge this, or even try to get the guy’s argument, is just having a bad conversation.
@@DaanVreeswijk yeah I want to call in and talk about this. I've been recently thinking of a way to present the argument that leaves no room to shift it towards abortion and does not include gender. Once I figure that out I'll probably do it.
Really off base with the arguments from Matt. I know he likely won't read this, but as many have posted, he can't seem to actually see the argument being raised by Tyler.
Also, as Jim mentioned about inconsequential sex. Well the woman has the choice of inconsequential sex. So Tyler's point stands. Females have it, men don't, therefore unequal.
@Michele D it was the point raised by Jim, the fact they have the right to terminate if they don't want a child, but the man doesn't have the right to abandon parental liability if he didn't want the child. I believe I misquoted in hindsight though, as Jim actually said Non-consequential, rather than inconsequential. Basically the female can go around having as much sex as they want, and can terminate as much as they want, but the male doesn't have that privilege. For clarity I don't care what people do with their bodies, I do just find the position unbalanced in position to rights and freedoms.
@Freed1 yeah that's not the point that was being made.
@Michele D a woman can abort, there arent any real consequences she can literally not have a baby,
a man can have sex..annnd nope he has no control over getting a baby
as a woman there is no consequence except getting an abortion ooooooo
wish men had that option
@Michele D does mean im not allowed to comment? weird it let me
@@Xarai a man can control his genetic material. He can choose to not have sex or he can have a vasectomy. These can even be done of the type that have a high likelihood of reversal. If he is uncertain. That's taking responsibility for his reproductive rights. Maybe Matt put it inelegantly however he didn't put it incorrectly.
Is a woman who gives her baby up for adoption (forfeits financial responsibility) a dead beat mother?
No not necessarily because she is transferring the responsibility to someone who wants it deadbeat dads do not transfer anything
Karl-benny johansson tf are you talking about? The father is literally doing the same thing, he’s transferring responsibility onto the mother who wants it. The mom had 50% responsibility before, and now she can have 100%. Idk what argument you’re even trying to make
@@Karl-Benny Let's skip adoption for a second. What about Safe Haven Laws that allow mothers to abandon their children no strings attached?
I like how Matt basically called Tyler a bad person and a deadbeat if he had consentual sex and got the female pregnant and he didn't want the child. All the caller was saying is that it's not fair that he has to take care of a child he didn't want because the female wants it. It takes two people to create a child, why is no one concerned about the males reproductive rights? I don't think Matt would say that if a woman got pregnant and decided she didn't want the baby even if the man did, he'd call her a deadbeat mom and say she's trying to have consequence free sex, but the man is?
@Andrew Fairfax I'm a man and agree with their take on what Matt said. In essence, Matt not only acknowledged that women have a right that men don't, but that he agrees with it being that way. Maybe it's YOU who are missing the point and doubling down by being pointlessly insulting?
@Andrew Fairfax There's the insults again. Did someone piss in your Wheaties this morning?
@Andrew Fairfax you're being unreasonably rude. I think what they're trying to say is that if a man has sex with a woman, with a condom or some other form of birth control, but the woman still gets pregnant, the woman should have the choice whether to abort or not. However, if a man wants the woman to abort but she doesn't, he should have the right to opt out. If the woman is allowed to kill it, maybe the man should be able to abandon it
@Andrew Fairfax there was no conflating
that was damn near spot on perfect.
only the woman has a say in BOTH peoples future
@Andrew Fairfax you do realise that throwing insults around makes people not want to accept anything else you say right?
If a woman can decide if she wants to be a parent, a man should be able to as well.
This guy sucks at arguing his point. Matt kept coming back to "you're trying to have consequence free sex" what consequence does a woman pay when she decides against being a parent?
None
Well, the woman does have more potential consequences (the pregnancy), but she also decides what the consequences for her _and_ in part the consequences for the potential father might be.
It's the last bit I, and probably the caller, have a problem with...
@Freed1 CAN be. You are making the same argument (what if he's broke) that Matt so thoroughly dismissed as dishonest. The only thing on your list that is applicable to most situations is the financial aspect. If you're comparing a $500 abortion to tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars supporting a child for 18 years I don't think you're making a good argument.
@@thetoddperspective I think we just have to acknowledge that perhaps, snowflake, life isn’t fair. Unfortunately there are differences in biology that make the circumstances different for men and women. I think that the current system (not specific abortion laws just the fact that in general it is legal) is best unless you can provide an alternative idea. Women should not be forced to carry a child for various reasons but once that child is here, he/she is owed support of some kind from both parents. It is not fair. But this isn’t an abstract philosophical question this is a real world scenario and laws are utilitarian (in theory at least). What is your genius idea?
@@amandamcgovern5744 My first idea is to not insult someone who is trying to have a conversation about a contentious and complicated topic. Since my original comment is garnering quite a response let me make my position clear. I am pro choice. I also believe that choice is totally up to the person carrying the pregnancy. Heck, I'm even ok with men not even getting a vote on abortion issues, I am fine with women working those issues out amongst themselves. Having said that, if true equality is the goal, then it wouldn't be just one of the sexes who has to "just deal with it"
I don't have a perfect answer, I don't think there is one. No I don't want children to not be provided for. I personally think deadbeat parents are pieces of sh*t.
Women want 100% bodily autonomy. If that same standard is extended to men then the money produced by the labor of their body is theirs, their choice. No, it's not perfect. I'm not even arguing that it is preferable. But it is closer to equality than the current system.
Matt, pls. The solution is for government to pay child support to all mothers for each child they have (along with schools, healthcare, and offering the out of abortion or adoption), not force all men to be limited to "abstinence or financial entrapment" which is a milder version of the theistic anti-choice argument.
Addendum: I did not expect to hear Matt sincerely argue "if you don't want the consequences, don't have sex" and "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" and all these other basically abstinence-only arguments directed at "sperm doners" while at the same time throwing in the caveat that actual sperm bank doners are off the hook from all of this.
@@venga3
Taxes aren't you paying for anything. They are the government paying for things. Once you pay your taxes, it isn't your money anymore.
@@venga3 I didn't say you pay, I said government pays, just like it pays for schools, roads, streetlights... My children are not your children, but we are all part of the same society and as a society we make certain investments for the wellbeing of all members of our society.
Why should the taxpayer pay for their negligent insemination? Good god. The man has options OTHER than abstinence. It’s called not having sex with someone with a uterus, or not having sex in a vagina, or not having sex with someone who is fertile, or even simpler, putting on a f’cking condom and not ejaculating into a vagina.
I get that as a society, we pay taxes that fund programs for children such as public school, but there is NO reason why a man’s culpability for his negligence should mean he doesn’t have to be financially responsible AT ALL.
@@seleuf Matt gave at least 10 other options other than abstinence that men have. How hard is it to roll on a condom? I assume they developed the sufficient fine motor skill of the pincher grab, yes? How hard is it to wear a condom AND to pull out prior to ejaculation? I see male porn stars can manage to do this just fine since most of them pull out and ejaculate elsewhere on her body.
My god. You seem to be arguing that a man HAS to inseminate a woman in order to have sex with her which is absurd. He doesn’t. He can have sex all day every day and nary a pregnancy will result if he doesn’t inseminate.
“If the woman can abort it (with the man having no say), then the man should at least be able to abandon it”. -Dave Chappelle (not my sentiment, but that’s what he’s trying to say).
Exactly
I agree. If her consent to sex is not consent to parenthood, his consent to sex should not mean he is giving over his consent to being a parent.
Do men understand there is literally nothing stopping them from practicing birth control? It is your ejaculation that causes the pregnancy. If you don't ejaculate inside of her, there would be no abortions or unwanted pregnancies.Basic biology, men are to blame for 100% of unwanted pregnancies. It really is that simple so hearing men discuss abortion and single mothers is mind boggling. You want to the pleasure of sex without any of the responsiblity or the accountiblity......geeze.......truly disturbing.
@@yavenay oh yeah, so sex is not pleasureable for women? so tired of these feminist snowflake warriors.
@@yavenay Nah... By that logic, If the woman practices abstinance or doesn't engage in condomless sex, there would be no baby either. Both are responsible for protection.
Is it just me, or does Matt seem more and more arrogant as time goes by?
indeed.
Yeah, I've been noticing this as time has progressed. Nowadays even when I agree with him I find him insufferable.
Its saddening because Matt was my favorite host for a decade, but I can't really stomach watching him now
I think he's just been doing this too long. Even in debates about religion and atheism, he used to take the time to have a proper discussion, now he just seems angry and dismissive all the time, which I can understand if he's heard the exact same bullshit on the show for so long, but it doesn't paint him in a good light.
@@Catcher310 Yeah, I think he's just tired. Because he's old, and because he's done this for so long.
Arrogant?? Imagine over the course of two decades getting calls from the most ignorant people in the world. Not to mention going over the same conversation over 100 times on each stand point and defense against religion and sort are views. Callused sure, arrogance absolutely not. This man has fought for rationale thinking for a very long time and has realIed that if you give an inch in this ignorant world that they will try and say you’re weak same with viewers. Look at you saying arrogance yet when he’s nice people say he’s soft. The ignorance the world is quick to label someone negatively is the problem so I would take a time out if I were you really think and don’t impulsively judge and make a deduction that’s more detailed instead of jumping to “arrogance” when you haven’t taken in any other variables.
Matt Dillahunty: consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.........
Unless you're a man.
Hypocritical much 🙄
4m: Awkward conversation. Already, the caller is being misunderstood at several points. Initial impressions (which i may edit after finishing the video) was the desire to be able to opt out of being a parent as a result of sex, just like the the carrying partner can by abortion/adoption. The hosts gave a 'tough shit' attitude to Tyler that wouldn't be shown to the carrying-partner side. Gonna keep watching, but it's frustrating when one side gives that impression that they don't want to listen.
Edit1, 11m: Matt is definitely not listening to the caller. The caller was respectful and listened attentively in the first half, yet Matt is speaking down to Tyler about a ton of options he has, yet doesn't even acknowledge that someone who doesn't want a pregnancy outcome and does everything right to prevent it the pregnancy happens is *stuck* into parenting if they're a male but not if they're a female (if i stick to binary for simplicity.). Definitely a low point of Matt's argumentation.
Edit2, 15m: Matt finally brought up a reasonable counter with the 'that's more unfair to the female side' if the male withdraws, she might abord due to the financial or other perceived pressures... 14 minutes in... and frankly if the pregnant person wants to carry the child, then they still can. If they can only do it by forcing the other party to pay child support, then we should also be reprimanding the mother/host individual just as much due to financials... I'm still frustrated with Matt's argumentation here. The argument that dudes going around having sex wantonly is a worse world is normally true, except it's not accurate to the situation they talked about. What about when women want sex wantonly?
Edit3: Finished video, only adding because of final comments. I'm not a 'dude-bro' (mtf/nb) and it's insulting to think the only people who would take this stance are men. My counter? Matt is against sex shaming and slut shaming, so why is he shaming men for wanting more sex?
I totally agree with that. I agree with a woman being able to choose...even if the man wants to keep the kid (as much as that seems unfair to me). But, if a man wants to "choose to have an abortion" (re: not keep the child), tough shit?
..
It SHOULD be a time limit during pregnancy...just like when the limit is to terminate. Personally, I put that at 9 weeks, but that's me. So, going with that, a man SHOULD be able to say "Ok, I don't want to... or I cant support a child".
@John Wood yes, but i'm understanding this call as a matter of general principle and discerning what the more equitable position should be, not on what is legal.
I unsubscribed from the channel from this convo. I agree that we can't have men be able to instantly drop out of a pregnant woman due to his actions, but the situation we realistically are talking about here is: man and woman have safe sex (condom + birth control) and a pregnancy is a result. Despite the fact that both parties acted as if they did not want a child, yet the female has 100% control over the situation is just not fair. If you have explicitly stated as a man that you do not want children (thats why the parties are using contraception) and the woman has told you she is on the pill and will take spermicide, the fact that the woman can also lie about both things AND not be held responsible for those lies since that can never be proven (it would be heresay) is just simply not a good thing. This only reinforces women to trap men with a child and make pay child support if he doesn't want it. The man is completely at the mercy of the woman. The fact this is possible only reinforces scummy behavior and makes men not want to have sex. In general, all Matt has done is excuse the injustice of our biased courts and family courts. However, I can see alot of heated debate and conversation from such a hot topic. Maybe I'm missing something though or I'm just not covering my points as well as I could.
@@plumfun6750 Just finished the video (comment was reupdated to reflect) and i'm severely annoyed at how they both suggested there's no escape from consequences of being a parent... so they're fine with abortion (which I am as well) but they're not fine with absolving responsibility of being a parent (which also comes with abortion de facto)... Very annoying. The fact that a woman (to keep terms simple) can choose to carry to term without any say of the donor is her right, but to hold that over the partner for funds has already *been* making the world a worse one. I said in my main comment but i'll repeat, if she'd only have the child because she'd have child support, imo that's too bad. Pregnancy changes the body permanently? that's the choice. In the words of the hosts, "Tough shit."
@Jack M all I really got from this convo on matts side was: well if a woman pokes holes in your condom, sperm jacks your sperm from your used condom, lies about her contraception, or lies about her willing to get an abortion if she gets pregnant even if they practice safe sex, well I guess have fun with those child payments or never ever have sex ever! :P
Matt, YOU'RE the dudebro here. You're the one with the anti-choice, anti-freedom sentiment.
Once a child is born, yes, both parents have an obligation to support the child.
That is not what is being discussed here. If he makes it clear /during/ pregnancy he wants out, he should have every right to do so. She is making the conscious decision to raise that child as a single parent.
What I said was absolutely true. I don't understand how you missed the point.
You're 8 months late and I'm not going to explain basic gender equality to you.
@Steve Doud If you're that desperate for a win, I'll just let you have it.
You didn't make a point - all you did was reiterate the video I already disagree with, but with a worse attitude.
@@countessroadkill9599 Steve Doud doesn't really understand his own arguments.
"If I pull the trigger of a loaded gun aimed at a target knowing what would happen, did I consent to shoot that target or was the target shot without my consent?"
He compares a woman to a mindless target who is incapable of consent. He doesn't think very highly of women, it seems.
"Sex is never consent to parenthood' only took 6 minutes to get to "if you have sex you consent to parenthood (but only if you supplied the sperm cells)." I don't know if there is a realistic remedy for the disparity in rights that the caller is talking about, but Jim and Matt seem disingenuous here.
If a person gets pregnant and doesn't want to be a parent, she can spend $1,000 (the high end for the cost of an abortion according to Planned Parenthood) and not become a parent. If a person impregnates someone else, he can... suck it up and pay child support for 18 years.
"I believe that no one should be diabolised for wanting to opt out of parenthood, because you can't force someone to carry a child and raise it just because they had sex. Saying to someone "Well you had sex, just suck it up buttercup, what are you a [insert insult here] ? Just raise that child and shut the fuck up" is wrong and immoral.
You can't force someone to have a child they don't want, and you shouldn't consider them filth if they opt out.
Oh and by the way i believe that you should be diabolised for wanting to opt out of parenthood, because you should be forced to take your responsibilites and to raise a child just because you had sex. Saying to someone "Well you had sex, just suck it up buttercup, what are you a [insert insult here] ? Just raise that child and shut the fuck up" is right and justified.
You had sex, you're having a child, you're a parent, suck it up or i'll consider you like filth."
Basically that for 21mn, with "So you're saying that women shouldn't have the right to abort you dudebro piece of shit" peppered here and there even though that wasn't the point.
@david brokaw the problem lies at whos is caring the fetus, which in this case, is the female. So, rights are not equal for both potential parents. Biology gives that right to the woman. And you are out of luck. Period.
@david if you think you analogy at the end is accurate you're so far wrong it's embarrassing. You're not even comparing like with like.
@@MrThemaskedavenger I'm comparing the options for a person who doesn't want to become a parent. Women have a right to opt out of parenthood, and I support that right absolutely. Men do not have that right unless the woman allows it (and if you need someone's permission to have a right, you don't have a right). That's all I'm saying.
As I stated above, I don't even know if there IS a solution to this problem, but I don't think telling all men to be abstinent until the day they are ready to be a dad is realistic, and we sure as hell aren't telling women that.
@@muzcleheadz4997 problem is, it's the man's money. if it's his money, he can choose to keep it. period.
I usually agree with Matt on the vast majority of issues. Not here though.
Matt: "If you are not in the position to assume the risk and financial responsibility to have a child, you shouldn't be fucking."
Seriously? That is the same thing that religious nut jobs have been telling us women our entire lives.
As a woman I think that both women and men should be able to opt in or out on a pregnancy. The woman since it is her body, her choice. But she should have the obligation to inform the man in a timely manner and he should have a choice to opt out in a timely manner as well, before her time to make the choice about abortion runs out. That way she can take into account his willingness or unwillingness to provide support.
Matt says having sex is not consent to having a baby or being a parent. It should go both ways. When Mat says don't have sex or don't have sex with someone that is fertile to a man, that is no different than someone telling a woman to keep her legs closed or don't have sex with a fertile man. If an argument said to a woman sounds ridiculous, the same thing said to a man sounds just as ridiculous.
Though, as I mentioned, the laws need to make it fair. As in she is obligated to inform the guy or make a reasonable effort to locate the guy, and he would need to make a timely decision to opt out right away. Otherwise it would not be fair if the guy had a chance to tell her he will provide support and then withdraw at a later time. It may be difficult to codify into law, but we should strive for equality.
As far as the man not supporting financially influencing the woman's decision, of course it should inform her decision. It shouldn't be have the baby and then figure things out, both parties should make their choices known early on before the baby is far enough along. If the woman chooses to go along with the pregnancy because for some reason it is the safer option for her, she can still choose to sign her rights away, like the guy did. But at least she'll know his position before she has to make a choice about whether to abort or not.
If the guy is chided for having sex while not financially able to afford a baby, shouldn't the woman be chided for having sex while not able to financially afford the baby? Huge double standard there. Taking away the bodily autonomy part, of course the woman has 100% to decide about her body, as it concerns to the financial part, it should be equal rights for both parties at that point. As I said, the woman can give birth and sign her rights away, the man should be able to do the same.
So far i haven't really stumbled into any topic on wich i actually disagree with Matt. This one was basicly the first exception, and you just prefectly formulated how and why, thanks.
Very succinctly put. I think the important thing here is to encourage a situation where a potential child is considered as such, and not considered to be a _punishment._ Turning a child into a punishment is just asking for a toxic family environment.
My idea on the situation would be to make it an opt-in, rather than an opt-out. Any time during (or even before) pregnancy, both parties can opt-in to parenthood and take on the legal responsibilities. If however this doesn't happen, then the woman in question will always have a situation where they can plan on whether they can raise a child on their own, or if they'd rather it be done with both parties present. This is all the better as it allows one to really consider what the best decision is ahead of time, rather than having that 'ticking clock' of pregnancy and wondering part-way through whether the other party might opt-out or not. If one knows going into pregnancy whether they'll be a single parent or partners, that's all the more time to make sure that preparations are all made and set up as they should be to ensure that the child can grow up in a good environment, and not, as mentioned before, grow up knowing that they're a punishment for someone else.
This comment needs more likes.
I’m a gay man so I shouldn’t even feel concerned about this. Still, what Matt was saying was making me feel uncomfortable, precisely because at some point I closed my eyes and thought “it would be a massive bs to say this to a woman : tough shit, you shouldn’t be fucking then” how is that any different from the “pro-life” side’s discourse ?
We all have rights. Women have 100% the rights over their bodies and only they can decide to carry or not a pregnancy. This is completely different to paternal rights and obligations. Unlike with the pregnancy, both parties are in equal grounding here and no one nor the other can force parenthood upon one of them.
Happy to read that such an amazing comment came from a woman noticing the same thing I noticed
I was thinking all of this and you literally nailed every single point for me. Thank you. I was a little worried the comment section would miss this hypocrisy. I too normal agree w Matt. But he has whiffed on this big time. Sometimes hes too busy virtue signaling and smelling his own farts these days to see the obvious. I think he does slightly the same when it comes to Islam as well.
This is such a difficult video to watch and it is proof for why it's never a good idea to idolise anyone. We are ALL prone to stupid arguments. I literally, right before this video, JUST watched the video where Matt directly argued against the point he is making when a lady called in to argue the case for liability and taking responsibility for a pregnancy!! Make it make sense Matt!
Matt can speak for me on just about any issue. This one is the exception. That doesn't mean I idolize him, it just means we hold a lot of the same positions.
Matt has said a lot of stupid shit, especially when it comes to atheism/agnosticism but stupid fan boys blindly defend him regardless of the obvious stupid.
@Andrew Fairfax and thank you for demonstrating you don’t understand mine.
@Andrew Fairfax my god, you’re popping up everywhere with your bullshit. It’s boring. I’m embarrassed for you. Move on, and live your life. This commenting lark isn’t for you.
@Andrew Fairfax aren’t you embarrassed you’re being trashed all the time though? You have a very basic grasp on things. I’m embarrassed for you.
Did Matt just argue against abortion? I'm confused here. Women can have consequence free sex by opting to have an abortion, but men can't have consequence free sex and are forced into parenthood. Where's the equality in that?
Women are not forced into becoming a parent and be financially responsible for the pregnancy of consensual sex, but men are?
Yeah that’s really weird. He thinks doesn’t think fetuses should have more rights than women, but women should have more rights than men? This one seemed super weird to me. I literally never disagree with Matt this much, but he was really off-base in this one
"Women can have consequence free sex by opting to have an abortion". In what world is that "consequence free sex" ? Having an abortion isn't a picnic in the park and carries potential medical/physiological risks. It's not like flicking a light switch to the "off" position. If you had to have someone scrape the inside of your dick with a curette and then bleed out of it for days afterwards, and/or face wacko protesters as you walked in to have the procedure, you might be a little less cavalier about your views.
@@barbarasmith2693 even pregnancy isn't as serious a final result as unwanted fatherhood......18 years of mandatory (or jail) support and a legal system that says she gets main custody by default........nothing is consequence free not even breathing.....however we could shore up the differences a bit by giving men some choice as long as she has one too
Matt is way too quick to call people dishonest. This guy was nothing but respectful to you. He just has a different opinion than you. And he brought up great points that you simply dismissed out of hand. Matt lets his emotions get the better of him way too much.
Matt needs to stop acting like an abortion is good if a woman wants freedom, but bad if a man wants the same fucking thing!!!!!
I noticed that
Like the hundreds of people who disagree with Matt, I also disagree here. As a woman if I have the right to abort my baby, then I have to allow the man to give up his fatherly rights to be a father to my child. If the government is giving me the gift of allowing me to opt out of motherhood, then I will give the man the gift of opting out of fatherhood. Pay it forward!
Perfectly stated.
This is the first time I've ever agreed with the caller. It should be easier for men to "financially abort" their right to be a parent. Treating sex as a crime, and punishing men financially and physically, shouldn't be the response to a situation where a man isn't ready and willing to be a parent.
Especially because it turns the child, a human being, _into_ a punishment. You want a toxic living situation? That's a prime way to create one.
The man should have *no choice* to force the woman to either carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it.
AND
The woman should have *no choice* to force the man to either pay for childcare or not.
BECAUSE
Consent to *Sex* IS NOT Consent to *Parenthood.*
This Standard should go both ways.
Matt was clearly being hypocritical here.
Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you
Matt in this one I feel is being very unreasonable. As a woman who has a lot of discussions about bodily autonomy i feel that the color is bring up a very fair point. When it comes to pregnancy it is a completely different ballpark that In many cases ignore the woman's needs, but also, the question of whether or not a man should be able to opt out of parenthood even before the child is born should be left up to the man and not the pregnant person, the pregnant person can choose whether or not to continue the pregnancy, can choose to continue being a parent, why can't the man? At that point, especially before birth, a man should be able to choose parenthood or naw, and government assistance should be given in the case of a Single parent
I have been waiting for this snippet to be uploaded so I could dislike it.
@Bloviator Magnus Except men do go to jail for not paying child support because they owe the State (who determines how the money is distributed after they take their cut), not the mother/child. If they fail to pay, get behind on payments, or don’t pay enough, they go to jail. They can even have their passport and license revoked/ suspended until they catch up.
@Steve Doud Then we dissagree.
@Steve Doud Then I would think that you should have a problem with Matt's take on this. Because as far as I can tell it is a double standard...
Allow me to elaborate, If a woman consenting to sex is not consenting to have a child, why is it that a man who is just consenting to have sex IS ALSO consenting to have a child? Why can only the woman consent to just the sex and not the child, but the man has to consent to both? If a woman can say yes to sex while also saying no to a child...then a man should also have the same choice. Now of course the woman ultimately gets to decide if she carries the child to term, but why then does her choice overrule the man's choice?
@Steve Doud You did not address my point at all. Not only that but when a man climaxes there is no "choice" in if he ejaculates or not so I fail to see your point. Also, I am fairly certain that in my previous comment I made it clear that I already agree that a woman has the choice to carry the child or to not carry the child so you restating that is pointless.
@Steve Doud The number of assumptions and pretentiousness you managed to fit in this reply is commendable. I think I am quite done exchanging comments with you, as you are showing quite clearly that you will not even attempt to show me even a modicum of respect.
Matt is speaking from both sides of his mouth.
"Sex is consent to parenthood but only for men"
Nope. Sex is NOT consent to parenthood. Matt never said it was. In fact, he specifically said it wasn't. Go back to 1:53
Sex is a conscious choice to engage in activity that may result in the conception of a fetus. What happens AFTER the conception is that ONLY ONE of the parties who engaged in said activity will be faced with the biological burden of carrying the fetus. That is the individual who gets to make the choice as they would be the person to incur the most physiological risk in continuing the pregnancy.
@@barbarasmith2693 to be more precise, for a man, sex is automatic consent to the risk of an 18year obligation that she can still opt out of......she should have a choice, man up of it happens....that is more like what matt said....as for me, as long as she has a choice I should also....that said, for me "her" choice is always "get away from me you fat creep" so in my case now the question is moot
Barbara Smith - I get that, but what actually makes a physiological risk so much more important than a financial one that a financial one is so unimportant we can just ignore it entirely and callously? I understand that the physical risks for females are horrific and I’m not trying to say we should stop treating them as horrific. But I can imagine a scenario where child support payments would keep a male trapped where he is, unable to do what he wants to with his own life, for at least 18 years. Is that not worth considering? If that’s all that women had to worry about instead of the added physical risks, I’d still fiercely defend their rights to abortion.
And the counter arguments to Tyler that go something like “just deal with the consequences, dipshit” are the exact same as anti-choice arguments. I don’t understand how that argument doesn’t argue against abortion. Like “you knew getting pregnant was a risk when you had sex. You decided to anyways, and now you’re a parent. Too bad you don’t want your body mangled by it. Just deal with the consequences, dipshit” . The only possible difference would be if you decided to say that pregnancy wasn’t a consequence of sex, but I hope no one is stupid enough to do that
@@bariumselenided5152 the body risk argument is also absolute bullshit as serious complications are about 1% chance, and almost always treatable with low to no lasting affects. Don't use the low odds to argue the common. Although all the pro choice people (ironic as hell) are trying to.
75ur15 - If you’re referring to my “too bad you don’t want your body mangled” line, that’s more about perception than anything. Pregnancy carried to term does have long term affects, and they aren’t desirable. It depends on the person, however, if they are enough to call one “mangled” or not. I just went for shock value and an extreme case, to make the post sound a little more interesting. If it bothers you that much I can edit it, I didn’t want it to get in the way of understanding
I usually agree with Matt, but damn, it really feels like he missed the mark. He agrees that a woman should have full day in what happens with the pregnancy, and I agree with that. However, he thinks men shouldn't have a choice in what happens after? Like, how is forcing a man to pay child support fair if the woman is the only one who gets to decide what happens to the child?
🤝🤝🤝🤝🤝🤝🤝☝️☝️☝️☝️🧠🧠🧠
The man should control his ejaculation. Even if sex is consensual, pregnancy is not.
Glad to see others heavily disagreeing with Matt on this one.
I’ve been disagreeing with matt’s approach of handling theist callers (being an atheist myself who almost 100% of the time disagrees with those callers) and all I see is people mocking the theist. Guess it’s different when you have a horse in the race.
@@jcnot9712 it's something you see everywhere. People will attack the opposition rather than start a productive discussion unfortunately. Same happens with theists mocking atheists (Atheist here), left with the right or more common today, xbox vs ps, I wish people would stop
@@sixapk9664 I meant to say I’m atheist (already edited). And yea, I guess that true nature is revealed at moments like this. In my opinion, they should’ve been calling out matt whenever he made a bad argument against a religious person, because there are plenty of those clips. The less of those instances of yelling at a christian we have, the easier it will be for some of those people to even consider a secular model.
@@jcnot9712
Precisely! Matt is arrogant and seems to think his "opinion" is fact. I am an atheist also and it disgusts me to hear Matt talk the Christians. Matt down right disrespects them and almost always rudely hangs up on them when the Christian disagrees with what he is saying. Matt just acts tought on the phone.
To be honest, I'm disagreeing more with his style than his opinion. I think it's a fair discussion and there are probably valid points for both sides. But there's just ZERO reason to snap at the guy like that mid-question like he's an imbecile
Matt being dishonest here, lot of men are paying for a child a woman choose to have, the conversation here should be, if a woman decides ti keep a baby by herself then she will have full responsibility looking after the child including financially.
Thats the risk you have to think about before you have sex. There is no free ride when having sex, when you know that is a probability.
@@muzcleheadz4997 unless you are a woman. Then you have plenty of "get out of jail free" cards
@@muzcleheadz4997 there is risk only because laws discriminate against men, if i have a sex with a wiman then by herself without me agreeing to it want to gi ahead with pregnancy, then its her fucking responsibility.
@@muzcleheadz4997 That's a common reason given against abortion.
@@muzcleheadz4997Continued pregnancy as a punishment?
This is literally the only video I have ever "disliked". Usually, I just ignore and move on. Here's the test Matt: If you say "tough shit" to one side, but CAN'T say it to the other, then it ISN'T equality.
Matt kept calling women women, but called men sperm donor. Imagine if he was talking about women as sperm receptor / receptacle ...
You clearly do not understand the differences here. A biological male who can make someone pregnant MUST decide before the act whether he is willing to accept the possibilities of the act.
A woman ALSO must decide that BUT as it is her body wherein the foetus resides, and she is not a vessel, nor are her rights suddenly removed, she will always get to make the right choice for HER.
If you are male, and able to impregnate someone, your choice MUST happen prior to you making someone pregnant. If you don't choose/act wisely in line with your personal goals of not having a child, you have given up your choice as to what the impregnated person will do. It is their body.
@@ThatWriterWriter1 You clearly missed the point in this debate.
Where did anyone mentioned this in their comments? No one is denying woman anything. It is just an open debate about male parental rights or lack of. But hey lets get all Matt on everyone because this can't be debated as this is canon?
@@ThatWriterWriter1 You act like the woman had no choice in having sex... if both consent to sex but not a baby then the decision was made before hand... her mood when she realizes she is pregnant shouldnt break her free from responsibility. Do you honestly think the man's body isnt being taxed while he slaves away to pay child support and alimony? Men even get locked up because paying both is often physically impossible.
Same here.
That’s the last straw for me with Matt. Condescending and yelling over he’s opponent, while missing the point and constructing bad analogies.
@Steve Doud hu? Did you read? Or can you read? :)
@Steve Doud yeah. Your reply was just to dumb to engage in. Now am more interested in how your going to save your dignity :) my first post clearly explain why am fed up with Matt. And I used to think he was great at debating.
@Steve Doud no. That’s a straw man, and a bad one.
@Steve Doud first of i watched it 8 months ago, and am not watching it again just to correct you. If am not mistaken he cuts out the man completely and argues like a 10year old. Now go back to your cave.
@Steve Doud reject whatever you want, I won’t waist any more time on you. The guy in the video was right, and Matt acted like a child.
I almost always agree with matt but we both go into sex understanding that a child is possible but only one of us has a choice to not be a parent if they so choose , while I agree i cant make a woman abort a fetus I should have the right to relinquish my parental rights without the womans signature.
lol
Let's take a poll.
If Matt addresses this in today's show, who here thinks he'll double down and call everyone who disagrees with him a stupid dudebro?
Lmao I don't know but I really hope not.
I'm thinking a double down, but an admission of error would be preferred. The ad hominem attack was bad enough, but I like to see Matt address what appears to be special pleading. He'd never say the same things to a woman.
Chad Bertrand - Which ad hominem? (Not hostile to you, I just don’t remember hearing one)
@@bariumselenided5152 The 'deadbeat dad' part.
I'm sure he will double down, and call us all 'doods', even the women disagreeing with Matt's argument.
Atheist Experience 3.0 incoming?
This may be the worst look I’ve heard from you guys. I feel like you weren’t listening and then started using these wild arguments to argue against a phantom. The caller seems to be calm precise and honest about what he thinks. He event tried to establish common ground and you were ready to turn up about it. I’d rewatch this one if i were you
Yeah, it's really not their forte. I noticed this in their abortion debates too. Probably not the best topic to call into an atheist show
I think Matt kinda missed his point to a extent. The guy was trying to point out that if a person chooses to keep the baby, the other should have the right to walk away and have nothing to do with it. This includes child support payments. Which I agree with. I feel like Matt reacted fairly emotionally and wasn't taking the time to actually see the point. There should always be an opt out for either parents. One isn't an incubator for your sperm and the other is not your bank account or your child's bank account.
I am not a sperm bank ether
@@shelbypayne3620
No one said you were.
I agree
I agree whole heartedly with you!! So many are manipulated on both sides of this situation, and the government just make the matter worse!
@Steve Doud again, my point still stands. If someone can abort the fetus (a right I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT), then their partner who got them pregnant should be allowed to step back and relinquish responsibility. There are more than enough cases that show that someone doesn't need to cum to impregnate someone, and the fact that birth control is not 100% effective. Thusly, their should be an out for BOTH parties.
Matt is a very smug arrogant person. He's not even open minded to opposing views on this. He's condescending to people who disagree with him.
Especially when it comes to gynocentrism. He's full-on blue-pilled and refuses to see any other perspective. He claims to care about believing as many true things as possible. But NOT when it comes to this topic.
@@justabill5780 lol true. The red-pilled and blue-pilled analogy was something I never expected to see here.
I fucking agree!!!!!
He's condescending to people that also agree with him....which is fucked up!!!!
"we'd be happy to interact with you except for those of you who are wrong" yep sounds very skeptical to me
the irony here is Matt is wrong and he doesn't see it.
@Steve Doud what was his point again, this was a while ago
@Steve Doud, do you believe insulting strangers is a productive component of conversations?
@Steve Doud, I’m not addressing what you said to Nerobyrne. I asked whether insulting strangers on the internet was a productive form of conversation
@Steve Doud, I haven’t even read past the first sentence of your conversation with Nero. Our conversation started with me asking you a question.
I don’t want to seem aggressive, but you seem to keep deflecting. I’ve asked about being cordial, and you keep bringing up accuracy
I've listened to this segment 4 times and lost respect for Matt each time
Same
What did u disagree with cuz it seems like he is just speaking about the reality of the situation
@Tiberiu Farcas ya kno I actually thought about this for a wile thinking of how I could argue but the women gets 2 chances to opt out abortion and adoption and the guy gets no choice what so ever I can see how that's fucked and I almost said but that's biology which we arnt slaves too any longer so that didnt really work but ur last line about if she wants to keep the child that's her choice and responsiblity. Its almost as bad as forcing a women to stay pregnant they are prolly not equal but 18 years of hard earned money or face jail seems as bad as 9 months pregnant but as a guy I wouldn't really know that, it's not as easy as I first thought bodily autonomy is everything it's why I support abortion and I just don't kno if that is equal to financial autonomy so I'll admit I'm on the fence now
Matt irrational sometimes is as flagrant as fundamental xtians.
The mans question was whether or nota guy should be able to opt out of parenthood or not if he's not consenting to having a baby.
Exactomondo ; and I would argue that if both parties agree to sex and not be parents, and she changes her mind for whatever the reason after the fact..... he should absolutely have that right. We shouldn't he?? She does. She can go for an abortion or choose to have the kid. In other words, she can decide on a mere whim that all of a sudden she wants to be parent(even after she told him she didn't). To my knowledge ; in most cases ; if she decides she wants to be a parent, he's still on the hook for child support even if he still doesn't wanna be a father ; just like he said from the very beginning before they even had sex. I agree with Matt that it's unfair ; but usually when something is unfair we do everything in our power as a society to address the situation to try and make it more fair ; but here Matt sounds like he's perfectly content with this blatant unfairness with regards to human male reproductive rights. For what good reason should she have the right to choose to be a parent ; but the guy shouldn't? And here I thought Matt cared about maximizing the levels of fairness in society ; maybe he doesn't care as much as I initially gave him credit for.
@@ravinglibertopian3226 chill dude I was just pointing out this guys argument. I like the intensity tho.
@@cainbradford1587 Muh bad. Meant no harm. Guess sometimes these conversations can get a little heated as evidenced by Matt ; but he really wasn't being particularly charitable to the caller on this issue.
exactly
I'm of the opinion that either parent should have the right to give up parental rights and responsibilities. The reason I think we don't allow people to do that is probably because in this country we are opposed to social supports. When I got pregnant, I offered that option to the father so he wouldn't have to pay child support because he made it clear he was furious about the financial burden. Mothers should have the same right as well to walk away and give the father full custody. However, I also recognize that without the social support that other countries have, this would likely lead to a decreased quality of life for the child. So it's a pretty sticky situation.
This is why I feel a lot of people aren't pro life - just anti abortion
@@sanc6284 I completely agree! The people who are most outspoken about criminalizing abortion are also the ones who are most firmly opposed to social supports for children. To me, that's what gives away that it has nothing to do with children and everything to do with controlling women.
@@saje239 not necessarily, it seems mostly about religion in those cases, don't kill, im just better than everyone......keep you dirty hand away from me you aren't on my level omg (possible reasoning not my opinion)
@@75ur15 Evangelical Christianity seeks to control women. They have specific beliefs about the role of women in society. So even though it's religious, it's still seeking to control women.
parental rights does not equal child support/financial burden
thats the actual argument
This was less about reproductive rights than it was about reproductive responsibilities. It seems to me the scenario Tyler had in mind was both adults consenting to something like casual sex where neither of them are intending for a child, things get too careless or a protection method malfunctions, the woman gets pregnant, she decides to keep the baby, but the man still doesn't intend to be a parent. Therefore, does he have the right to decline parenthood? I think Tyler's getting at accidental pregnancy (or worse, a woman lying about or sabotaging protection) being used to force a guy into parenthood to stay with her. I understand the concern about "consequence-free sex" and guys just being careless and casually opting out of responsibility, leaving the woman to either abort or raise it as a single mother (or search for a willing step-dad), which is a serious issue, but bodily autonomy doesn't mean a woman can force parenthood on a man any more than the other way around. It's situational, at least.
"Men need to Paaaaaaay!!!" Deadbeat dad sounds like something Matt was attacked with at some point in his life. Or why be so volatile about it?
I agree with basically everything you say and this is a pretty nitpicky detail, but it bugs me how you had to make it about casual sex. This is something anti-abortion people do a lot too, with their whole "she just wants to ride the cock carousel with no consequences" or "this is why you should wait until marriage" bullshit. Unwanted pregnancies are NOT just a consequence of casual sex and although you might not have meant it that way, bringing casual sex into the conversation somewhat carries the implication that if two people are in a committed relationship they will automatically want children. You can be MARRIED to someone and still not want kids. In fact I've seen quite a few anecdotes about this, about people being in committed relationships where they have different ideas of when/if the want children, and the woman intentionally gets pregnant because she figures her boyfriend/husband will just roll with it and she'll get her perfect little family even though she's blatantly ignoring his wishes.
@@KreeZafi Fair point. I did mean it as sex simply for the pleasure of it, committed relationship or not, without intending for children, I just don't know how else this would be called other than casual.
@@ironatheist4520
Matt doesn't have any children.
Wearing a condom while pulling out is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy.
Never thought I'd see the hosts advocating for poor people to just not have sex on the Athiest Experience. It felt like I was watching a Christain broadcast advocating for abstinence. As a fan this was disappointing and hard to watch.
The arrogance of telling the caller any man who would want to opt out of parenthood just wants to go around having consequence free sex was shocking. I've come to expect this kind of hateful and narrowminded rhetoric from some of their callers but never from the hosts. I feel like I slipped into the twilight zone after Matt looked up the rape case and chose to fight over the number of similar cases instead of the rights of a male rape victim.
I think the caller's question was worthy of an actual discussion, not whatever this was.
Agreed
Not poor people, poor MEN. Poor women still get to have fun.
I don't know what happened to Matt here. Maybe he was having a bad day or something. But his arguments in this seem so flawed and illogical. Its even more infuriating how he dismisses the callers querries and arguments with " tough shit" like that is in any way a response. If this had been a theist caller who dismissed Matt's argument and queries with the same response, I have a feeling Matt wouldn't have be as level-headed as this caller. It gets even more weird when he talks about the man accepting the consequences and being an adult. Which is hilarious because that's the same arguments pro-life callers have no doubt used against him and he probably dismissed as flawed.
Exactly! With a straight face they used the arguments prolifers use on women
What utter bull shit. Some life situations can only be described as tough shit and if you think Matt's argument here is anywhere near his argument against pro lifers you need to go back and rewatch his discussions again.
@@MagetaTheLionHeart By you and Matts logic why can't I equally say "tough shit" to a woman who wants an abortion? Afterall actions have consequences and you have to live with them, those where his literal words BTW. Your doing the same shit and simply throwing out some buzz word like it answers anything or even remotely bring anything to the discussion. Its absolutely pathetic and devoid of logic and reason that we as self proclaimed thinkers should stride for.
@Michael Lane AronRa is similar. I take issue with this too, since any proper study into the early feminist movement makes it clear it was misandrist, racist and not even particularly concerned for the gender it claims to advocate for. The amount of laws implemented by feminists that privilege women at the direct expense of men are nothing less than bigotry.
Ironically, the humanist arguments that many atheists like Matt and Aron Ra utilize to point out the oppressive nature of religion apply to feminism, the extreme left and what progressivism ultimately has become but like how religious people use doublethink to think rational about everything save their faith so do atheists like Aron/Matt.
They claim to be skeptics and follow evidence with rigorous research but clearly not on this topic. They'd rather jump on their white knight righteous soupbox than look at the facts, which is that men are clearly second class citizens and that the 'women were oppressed' narrative of the past is a myth. Women had disadvantages but then the lives of men in older times were similarly harsh, I would argue significantly more so on average.
David Silverman found this out the hard way when he got falsely accused and they removed him without a second thought. Yet these people still have the blinders on.
@Michael Lane The words misogyny and racism have now been perverted to mean "things people say I don't like or want to hear". Which is a shame, because it is a grave insult to those people that actually have legitimate suffering due to actual bigotry, as opposed to imagined.
Did not know that about Hawking. If that's the case, it is deeply depressing.
If you switched man with woman in Matt's argument he would sound exactly like someone arguing against a woman's right to abortion.
Gestation is the defining point here. Matt believes in a woman's right to choose because he believes bodily autonomy is paramount. Child support isn't a violation of bodily autonomy. Non consensual pregnancy is a violation of bodily autonomy.
I don't agree with him on this point, but he isn't being inconsistent. If men were the ones gestating, he would be saying women have to pay child support if that man chooses to continue the pregnancy.
Its unfortunate but the problem ultimately isn't the conclusion because it is the only rational conclusion to reach. The rhetoric and nonsense he is tossing around to denigrate the position is the same rhetoric used to denigrate women who are considering or have abortions by Christians.
@@saje239 The point I was making is that Matt's dismissive too bad, if you don't want the responsibility don't have sex.... for men only.... is exactly what anti-abortionists say about women. Matt's arguments lead to the idea that if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have sex.... if he was being fair.... as he said near the end " if you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
@@brianmonks8657 I think he would say if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have sex. He just wouldn't force her to stay pregnant.
@Grey Bough I love Dave Chappelle and agree that men should be able to sign away parental rights, but it's not actually a comparable situation. I just think parents should be allowed to sign away parental rights. To me, it's probably not going to be good for a child to be raised by people who were forced into it so we shouldn't force them. For most women who gestate, the maternal instinct is usually strong enough to prevent that, but for men not so much. I think the reason we force it here in America is because we are largely opposed to social supports and recognize that it will impact the child's quality of life.
the caller was 100% right.
Matt Dillahunty: We can't tell women they shouldn't have sex if they don't like the consequences. Also Matt Dillahunty: men shouldn't have sex if they don't like the consequences.
I don’t think he said that at all. I’m also trying to understand this, but I don’t think that statement is entirely honest.
I think he literally said that men can have sex without consequence. The consequence seems to be, a child, and I hate that that seems to be a such a negative thing from all perspectives.
I think we all need to have a more nuanced view around sex and sexuality.
Regardless, a woman (that might bear a child) should have the same right to bodily autonomy as any other human being
@@jasonhiatt3667that’s not what he said. Matt said “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” That implies that men are consenting to being fathers, every time they have sex, while women are free to opt out, until at least early into the 2nd trimester. We can’t make women do or not do anything (I agree with that), but we DO make men be the parent, based on the decision that only the woman can make. I’m not trying to make a case, only to clarify what was said and what is the standard set of rules were given.
Wow, Matt really has some topics that he is clearly emotionally invested in. So invested that he makes completely irrational arguments in a vain attempt to prove what an ally he is to women. Well we can be allies to women without white knighting. Someone should explain that to Matt.
Yeah, I'm a woman and support my rights to abortion 100% but thinking about this from a man's perspective for 1 second makes me scared to shit. Early on in the pregnancy (so the woman has plenty of time to abort) the man shouldn't be able to relieve himself of all rights and obligations, and probably provide a fee to the woman to cover abortion and any other associated health costs. From there the woman gets to decide 100% and can let the man have any involvement she wants, including none at all
Matt sounds surprisingly pro-life in many of the things he has said here
As the person who said "Maybe not dishonest but you're making the same arguments to a man Christians make to a woman," I'd still like to know how not?
The ultimate conclusion is correct but saying shit like "you just want to have consequence free sex" to a man is literally, almost word for word, among the things Christians say about women and abortion. And that was only the most egregious example. The way he approached this was horrendous in order to reach the only rational conclusion.
Also appreciate being called a douchebro along with others for pointing out the double standard he used rhetorically to arrive at the reasonable conclusion. I'm sorry for having the intellectual integrity to think the rationale you use to justify a conclusion matters alongside the conclusion.
I have to wonder, though... who wouldn't want to have consequence free sex? Aside from people who simply aren't sexual at all, of course.
@@Diviance That would be nice if it were possible to just flip the baby switch to off and on whenever it was convenient honestly. The switch for STDs and morning after regret too. But we live in a world where things happen that we didn't intend.
@@sypherthe297th2
Well, now I am just imagining a genetic modification people do for the baby while in the womb that renders them completely infertile. Then, later in life, when you want to actually have kids, you just take this pill or get a simple 5 minute procedure that reverses the genetic alteration and lets you have kids again.
That would be a fascinating method of birth control... I can see potential issues, but it would be fascinating.
@@Diviance Oh I have no doubt we'll get up to shenanigans like that one of these days. Maybe parents won't do it to kids in the womb enmass but there would certainly be a market once it becomes simple and unobjectionable enough.
Then the inevitable class action lawsuit when they discover "Oops maybe we can't reverse it as easily as we thought," and the lawyers make billions off the settlement while the clients get a coupon for a free genetic modification of their choice. Wait I'm an American class action lawsuits and holding big business accountable aren't things we do here.
@@sypherthe297th2
In other words, buy stock in the company who figures it out first. Gotcha.
What if she lies? Says she's on the pill and "forgets" to take one that day? Still the man's responsibility to help with the child?
I'm a straight man and I have to tell you that, unfortunately, we men have to consider that as a possibility. What if you wear a condom and somehow it rips or something? same thing.
How can you prove that she lied?
It's shitty but biology has determined that's the way. We men are lucky we dont have to carry a baby for 9 months, gain weight, give birth, get stretch marks, get saggy tits for the rest of our live afterwards, risk dying during child-birth, etc. Biology made us lucky that way.
On the other hand, that gives the woman the right to choose what to do, not us.
@@amacuro so because pregnancy sucks, a woman ostensibly has a right to force a man to subsidize her choice even if he does not want to parent a child. Bottom line: men cannot choose for women, but women can choose for men. Its a double standard that does not stand in the case of women, but its totally fine to force the burden of a child on a man. Just because a man doesnt carry the child doesnt mean his lifeblood won't be sucked dry over at least the next 18 years. Both sides suffer from the decision to have a child. Those that do not want to suffer should be able to opt out of their parental responsibilities. If the woman wants to keep a child against the mans wishes, she should assume any and every single financial burden for that child. She is the one choosing to keep it, she should have to pay for it.
@@amacuro I think women lie about it fairly regularly. It's an unfair situation and there are women who play the system. Also, if a rubber breaks in my opinion, the guy should be able to opt out, and she should be able to get an abortion. If she chooses to have the kid at that point it's on her to provide for it.
@@amacuro you might not feel so lucky after paying $60,000 of child support. Let's imagine a broken condom. Both parties man and woman, decided they didn't want to have a pregnancy. At what point does it become ok for the woman to change her mind and decide she wants to have the baby? The answer is, whenever she wants to. This again begs the question, how is the guy responsible for her change of plans? Maybe the condom company should pay child support as well.
@@FendenKrell you still have the option to wear a condom. Why is preventing pregnancy only the woman's duty? Carry a condom if you don’t wanna face the consequences of sex.
Matt, I can assure you that the world with financial abortions would be a massively better one. I submit three points:
Children that are born are WANTED and supported by both parents and have better chances to succeed.
Less children are born.
Reproductive deception will disappear.
"Ahh, but if you can't afford to have a kid you shouldn't be ducking!" Unless you have ovaries, then its his fault! Even if she lies about the pill when if the man did the same (poking holes) he would be a criminal. Yet she can poke holes, unanimously change her mind back and forth but men are supposed to somehow fully responsible and more for both of their choices unless she disagrees? This is ridiculous!
@@jloren4647 literally no woman is poking holes in men’s condom. No one.
@@jloren4647 that would require the condom to be opened beforehand in order to poke holes in the latex. Sabotage of his condoms doesn’t happen. Ever.
Her lying about her birth control doesn’t change a damn thing about his independent decision not to use any himself
@@cm4502 That whole statement is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read. Good poe!
@@jloren4647 dude, not a poe. No one is poking holes in your condoms. Your hostility towards women, as if they are trying to trap you (you can’t be trapped by your own actions) is giving off a lot of MRA whiny loser energy.
Even if that were true (that she poked holes), you were still the dumbass that didn’t bother to pull out before you came.
There is very very little mobile sperm in precum. Less than 25 million. That’s less than 50 million sperm…and men with 50 million sperm counts in their entire ejaculate have been trying to get their wives pregnant for 3 years or more….
So please. Stop being negligent with your sperm and then whining about being responsible for your own negligence.
Well I think Tyler has a point. This is an unfair law, that the father cannot relinquish rights to the unborn child. If we can give rights to abortion, we should also be able to give rights to the fathers to abandon. "Consequence to having sex" goes equally to both consenting party. Think about it people.
You are forgetting that the 'father' can have a good time ole time and walk away with not having to go through a medical procedure or expense to abort the consequences of having sex. So how do you propose to level that playing field if you want everything to be equal in an imperfect world.... maybe he should go through a vasectomy while she has an abortion. Fair's fair and all.
@@propop1 abortion is not equal to vasectomy, look it up. And no one said that both party wont be equally liable for the costs, unless it was a rape case. In those cases I wished we cud transfer the pregnancies to that dude(if guilty), however until that is possible, the guy should be prison worked and the abortion amd therapy should be a goverment expense.
Having to either go through pregnancy or having an abortion IS a consequence.
So she gets the consequences and he gets a good time, eh?
@@propop1 Uh, the father will be liable to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support over 18 years for a child he didn’t want. If the mother wants to keep that baby it’s her choice, but not at the financial expense of someone else. Let the father relinquish rights and move on.
@@Moosenogger why should he get to be indemnified against his own negligence?
I'm not choosing a side, but Matt isn't addressing the callers actual question in my opinion, is:
Women have the right to choose, to opt out of pregnancy via abortion, but a man cannot opt out for any reason. While that is thus far unavoidable, is it ETHICAL?
Women have the right to consequence free sex, and I think Matt supports that right for women. Why is it unethical for a man to "opt-out" but a woman has a protected right to do the same?
If a woman is broke, does that mean she shouldn't be fucking? Do women need money to choose sex? Or just men?
This is a tricky subject because pregnancy is inherently unequal.
The women has the right to choose whether to go through with a pregnancy or not. The man should not have authority over what the women decides with her body.
People are trying to suggest that to make it equal the man should be able to "opt-out". But the real equality here would be that a baby is born and both the mother and father have the option of opting out. That's the path this "equality" takes.
Until there's a way to make pregnancy equal (lab baby), this "opt-out" is simply trying to gain a concession for not getting the choice on what the women should do with the fetus. "You unfairly get this choice and I don't because of how pregnancy works so I seek another right to make it even".
It is ethical because ultimately, after the point of viability and birth, only one party was not culpable in the birth. The child themselves. Therefore the legal standard is best interests of the child and rightly so.
This power imbalance is unfortunate but I don't see any way to square this circle.
@@ragadanked As I understand it, the argument here is: In the current context, a man CANNOT opt out, but all things being equal, they SHOULD have the same rights, regardless of what is on the ground now.
No one worth listening to is saying men should get any additional rights. I believe they are saying that it is still worth recognizing and analyzing.
@@djtripnosys I definitely agree that this is an issue worth recognizing.
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought the argument in the video was: Why can a women have an abortion (insinuating this is opting out) but a man can't opt out of parenthood. Or was he saying why can a women opt out of parenthood but a man can't?
@@sypherthe297th2 Exactly. But I believe the main point is, that IS an imbalance, and acknowledging it and trying to address it, at least in a philosophical sense is a fair discussion.
This is what entitlement looks like.
"you're not a victim if you had sex?" Wow, dude! I hope you didn't mean what that sounded like.
@Andrew Fairfax : So if a woman gets pregnant and he dude up and walks away, she isn't a victim, either. She had sex, after all...
@Andrew Fairfax : Then why can a woman walk away from being financially responsible for her child, but a man cannot? Woman can give up a child "no questions asked" in most states and just walk away. Why don't men have the same right?
@@justabill5780
We await an answer with bated breath.
@@justabill5780 exactly right.
@@justabill5780
I've been thinking about it and looking closer at both sides of the argument. I think the issue people have is that if you have it in society that the man can simply opt-out of the scenario all together, there's no way for a court to determine if you two were actually planning on it or not. It could have been a plan in the works the whole time and the guy just got cold feet and decided he didn't want to be a part of it at the last minute. This type of scenario would mean the mother brought the kid to term with the understanding that the dad would be in the picture, and she's now screwed.
So, wouldn't it be really easy to remedy that? The moment the mother finds out she's pregnant, she goes to court and names the father, who can contest if the child is even his or not. If it is, or if he doesn't dispute it, then you both make it clear wether your intent was to have a child or not, officially, on paper.
If the dad says it was an intended pregnancy and decides to opt out later, he's on the hook for child support because he agreed this pregnancy was legitimate. If he does not name the pregnancy legitimate, he still has a legal obligation to provide support to the mother throughout the pregnancy (if she chooses to keep it), or to help with the cost of abortion if she chooses not to.
This scenario would ensure the man holds up his responsibility for the pregnancy wether he wanted it or not, but it also doesn't put him on the lifetime hook of supporting a kid he never tried for to begin with.
Once the child is born, the father is no longer responsible for financially supporting the mother and the mother could not have been surprised by a sudden decision to abandon the family. So wether she chose to have the kid or not, she did so knowing full well the intent of the father.
I'm not saying this scenario is a good one or anything, but where I'm at so far with this, it sounds reasonable. I'd like to hear what other people think.
I certainly agree there is an issue here. Dave Chapelle put it best. "if you can choose to kill it, i can choose to abandon it".
Seems like Dave Chapelle doesn't know jack shit about life viability, bodily autonomy, demographic ethics, or compositional fallacies.
@@kelleren4840 Not really. I think he is just pointing out that if a female wants to abort it, then he can at least abandon it. There isn't much in the way of fallacy of reasoning there either.
Not once did he say a woman shouldn't be able to choose. Demographic ethics has nothing to do with it. Aswell as life viability. This argument is purely from a standpoint of what a person should choose to be able to do.
@Grey Bough ah. Didn't know he was a comedian. Sounded like a fox news commentator, so my knee jerk reaction was "oh boy, here we go again."
@@vidfreak56 I missed this. Dead wrong on several points, but see my response to Whatthehell Amidoingwithmylife as it covers most of it.
@@kelleren4840 Dead wrong on no points actually. I have seen no response to whatthehell. RUclips probably didnt post it.
No one should be forced to become a parent. Women who make the choice without the input of the father should bear the responsibility of that choice. It’s irresponsible to have unprotected sex but just as a woman shouldn’t have her life dictated by one night, neither should a man’s
I get what you're saying but even still the father should have some kind of roll in their kids life, do they have to have custody of the child no they don't but I mean spending at least the weekends with the child wouldn't hurt I mean it is their kid
@@nyapayton7087 He doesn’t want the child. He has a right not to want the child. He might even be a bad influence as his detest for the child might show and damage the kid. No one really wins here.
I'm usually in agreement with Matt on all points, but not on this one. I think Tyler makes his point very respectfully and precise, but Matt gets agitated for no reason. Maybe because he's having trouble finding a good argument :P
This was seriously painful to listen to. And for the first time not because of the caller. He was not making the point well, but he was not the problem here.
We are giving an artificial right to women to abort a pregnancy, as we should. And we are not giving that right to a man. Why? This obviously does not have to equate to a termination of the pregnancy, but could very well be a termination of the legal responsibility. Why does a woman have the right to a mans DNA if it was given accidentaly and with reasonable protection?
"You should not have sex then" "You have consented to the possibility of a pregnancy" That is exactly the disengenuous bullshit that people tell women.
I would realy hope that Matt and Jim listen to this call again and adress the flipping around of arguments that is so obvious here.
If the dude opts out early, and the kid is kept and ends up suffering, that's because the woman didn't abort. It's her fucking fault in that situation.
Wow, I wasn't expecting Matt to say that poor people don't deserve to have sex. I have heard him in the past assert that sex is a natural part of being human that we should acknowledge all people can want regardless of background.
No no no, poor MEN don't deserve to have sex. That's what he's saying. The sexism is mind boggling
@@sebastep Does sexism bother you? How bout hypocrisy?
sebastep - I noticed the duplicity of this as well. There can be a good reason for treating one class of people differently than others (welfare is given only to poor people, for instance) , but I didn’t hear Matt justify the duplicity once. I hope he doesn’t stop talking about it, I’d love to know more about why he thinks this way and how he justifies it. It’s not impossible that I’m wrong and thinking too simply and Matt just didn’t have time to explain his position, though I must admit I have my doubts
@@bariumselenided5152 I could be wrong here, but I think Matt had more than just one meaning in what he said, and that y'all are taking it too literally. Additionally, Matt isn't the one who brought one's financial status into the conversation. Matt was more or less just rebutting the "I can't afford child support" excuse.
I'm fairly certain he was more referring to just people engaging in irresponsible behavior in general.
Matt is not a moron. Of course he knows that a "poor" person can obviously have responsible sex. He just doesn't like someone using their financial status as an excuse, when that person should have been more selective about where he put his baby gravy! .
@@davidjimenez7556 but a woman CAN engage in irresponsible behavior AND have get out of jail free cards
Over a year later and this is still one of the worst takes on the internet, as far as I'm concerned.
We can't see the down-votes anymore (thanks RUclips, really helpful), but it's good to see that the comment section, seemingly unanimously, tore the video to shreds.
+1 for scepticism and critical thinking... good job, guys!
Yep. We should call out ANYONE (including and most importantly our own community) on bullshit they say. Matt is only human. It only strengthens the skeptic community to call out these bad takes.
And, then at the end he has a hissy fit because people are calling out his hypocrisy, and starts spewing insults like a child. I feel so bad for the woman that was married to him for awhile. Those must have been the worst few years of her life.
I’m with the caller on this one. If the sperm donor doesn’t want a kid, and the mother wants to carry to term, that’s her decision and her responsibility.
MAYBE a one time child support payment is necessary (more than the cost of an abortion).
@Steve Doud that was more of light concession than a recommendation
@Steve Doud only if both consent to the child being born. Like this:
After pregnancy
Man+woman consent: child born and both are responsible for it
Man consent but woman doesn’t: child aborted
Woman consent but man doesn’t: child born and only the woman is responsible
Neither consent: child aborted
@Steve Doud you couldn’t be more wrong. Consent to sex is not consent to fatherhood, just like consent to sex is not consent to motherhood.
I'm with the caller frankly, if I have a one night stand with somebody and take all the proper procedures I possibly can to prevent a pregnancy and I clearly say to my partner I DO NOT WANT TO BE A FATHER. Then a pregnancy occurs I should not be held responsible if the mother carries the fetus to term, it's a fetus and my sperm is no longer in my testicles, it's inside her and she consented to taking the risk to have sperm put into her vagina. I can't be held responsible for a sperm cell which is inside somebody elses body, I can't exactly dig in there and pull them out.
She took the risk, she knows what happens when sperm gets inside her.
To put it bluntly I have just as much of a right to reliquinish my responsibility to the sperm cell in her vagina as a woman has to reliquinish responsibility to fetus cells in her womb.
I terminate my responsibility to the sperm cells and if it leads to fertilisation and you don't want to be pregnant you have the right to also reliquinish responsibility too through termination.
If you choose to keep the fetus to term that's your choice and also your responsibility. I've already made it absolutely fucking clear I do not consent to fatherhood, I do not consent to the responsibility of being a parent. I abstain from being a father in the first place, I'm not the father and therefore can't even be a deadbeat father, call me an A-Father much as an Atheist., I'm a sperm donor at best and you chose to continue the pregnancy and that's on you, unfair like a flat tire. I've had a spermbortion. It's up to you to have an abortion if you don't want the child.
Now if I abstain from fatherhood and you want to keep the fetus, I'll happily provide you with money to cover the cost of an abortion should you change your mind. What i'm also saying is you as a mother are not entitled to special priviledges which is exactly what Matt is inherently advocating for. The argument he is using leads to women have rights over men. You're essentially saying women can tell men "you're going to be the father whether you like it or not" which is paramount to the government telling women "you are getting pregnant whether you like it or not".
Pregnancy lasts 9 months but a fatherhood set up is commitment for a persons entire fucking life and there's no way out of it. You are holding a mans Time, Energy and his Wallet at metophorical Gunpoint and telling him "be a father or go to jail" (as failure to pay child support leads to debt, fines and eventual jail time). Fuck that system, fuck that inequality and fuck this continued bashing of men labeling them as Deadbeats and useless for simply chosing not to consent to a pregnancy, the same thing pro-choice advocates claim should be a womans right.
Matt continues that taking no responsibility for the fetus could mean that the woman would have to terminate the pregnancy even if she doesn't want to, or could have to remain pregnant even if she doesn't want to. That's an issue for greater society not the responsibility of the biological father of the fetus. It's not his job to keep her financially uplifted if she is in a situation where she can't or must have an abortion for financial reasons. That's where our society steps in through taxes and provides her with the options she so chooses by offering child subsidises or free abortions.
One final thing, Matt stop slut shaming men too if you don't mind. I've have as much right as anyone else to have sex with whoever i want and vice versa. I can be a male sex worker if I fucking want to. This bullshit double standard where i'm just some jiggalo it's a serious sexist problem.
You deserve way more thumbs up
👏👏👏👏👏
@@ajclements4627 i know those are clappy hands but i see tacos so i'm even happier
@@MsHarpsychord Damn, now I want tacos.
I really felt for this caller. The argument that "there are consequences to having sex" could be used to justify the prohibition of abortion just the same. "If you are not capable of supporting a child you shouldn't be fucking" - but only for men, because women have options (included, but not limited to, abortion).
PS.:I DO think abortion should be legal. But there IS an imbalance in reproductive rights, and "tough shit" is a piss poor response to it.
I don’t see how the same argument could be made at all. Pregnancy IS the consequence for having sex for the woman. Abortion (or birth) is therefore taking responsibility for that consequence.
For men, pregnancy isn’t their consequence because they don’t get pregnant. Their consequence is their culpability in someone needing an abortion, or someone needing child support.
Do you see the distinction?
@@cm4502 Have you paid someone $700 per month for 23 years, under threat of imprisonment and utter destruction of your entire life? It feels kinda like rape, but it carries on beyond two decades.
@@tos100returns you aren’t a victim. You are culpable for your negligence.
@@tos100returns you know you are an autonomous independent adult, yes? You know that you can have sex without introducing the only external catalyst to pregnancy, yes?
If you didn’t pull out while wearing a condom, you acted negligently, and are therefore liable for that negligence.
I promise you, you’re getting off easy. she’s spending a Hella lot more than $700 a month on your kid. Stop whining that you don’t get consequence free sex anymore than she does.
That's the only correct response. You are taking up for deadbeat Dads because you're male.
Man for the first time Matt was on some major BS. I understand where the man was coming from.
yea and even if you agree or disagree with matt there was no need for him to approach the convo in this way (at least up until halfway through). acting as if he’s committing some sort of atrocities
double standard. if the female knowingly carries a child to term knowing that the "sperm donor" is unprepared to father a child it's the EXACT same coercion in reverse. you have a problem with the pressure that would put on the female to either abort or chose to take on the responsibility of parenting a child. if the female in this situation decides that she wants to undergo the physiological changes and the stresses of carrying a child to term, knowing full well that the "donor" has not the means nor the desire to father a child, then she is now using that as leverage to pressure someone else into a situation that will have a dramatic effect on the rest of "the donors" life, as if that's just the natural consequence of having sex. you're acting like this is a better world (as if consequence free sex would be a bad thing.. for either party..). You are ignoring the fact that giving birth to a human in this situation leads to suffering for the child, the father, AND the mother. increases the number of people living in poverty stricken lives, resenting each other. this shows how privileged and disconnected you are from the current socioeconomic woes that MOST people in the US are dealing with, you are completely unaware of the suffering that will result from the females choice to carry to term and leverage THAT human being that she decided to create against another human that both of them were likely unprepared to raise. Are you aware that the majority of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck (you act like the father being broke is a rare special situation)? Are you saying that only people with exceptional finances should be allowed to have sex? consequence free sex, is a better world, and you had nothing to back up your claim that it wouldnt be a better world, other than your apparent disgust for the idea that people having sex might not be punished by a life time of suffering and poverty. this is abhorrent. Edit: poisoning the well tactics by calling everyone who disagrees with you "dudes"(or w/e) and deadbeats WAS also quite repugnant" I'm quite livid. I watch these because it's so satisfying to hear logical reasoning . and now I don't think I can watch any more content from this man.
Everyone should have a right to be a deadbeat dad, just like women have the right to be a deadbeat mother by giving the child up for adoption. it´s the same thing, but we use much harsher language when talking about men than women. Men also can not be ready to raise a child, and if a woman decides to do to it, she can´t expect someone else to also participate.
While your logic sounds fair, here are a couple more considerations:
1. Because of what a baby requires of a woman both during pregnancy and for years after (to give the best to the child), women are much less able to work and bring income, than a man. Hence, historically why the man works and the woman has the babies and stays home caring for them.
2. Women have more control over whether they get pregnant or not. They are the final gatekeeper. Therefore they have, or should have, more responsibility for a pregnancy. Matt probably wouldn't like to hear that. He keeps talking about it like the two genders should have equal responsibility for the risk of pregnancy when "there's just two equal people wanting to have sex."
A woman can't unilaterally give a baby up for adoption. The father must consent as well. This issue cuts both ways because if either parent refuses the adoption the other parent is on the hook. IMO, that's the problem. Neither parent can opt out independently.
@@jdsartre9520
1. I don't see how this is relevant?
2. How do women have more control of whether they become pregnant or not?
@@jdsartre9520 Pregnancy is entirely a woman's responsibility because it happens inside her body. It has nothing to do with her being the "final gate keeper" or what "should" happen. No one else is capable of being responsible for it.
Both parties have equal responsibility in preventing the pregnancy when one isn't wanted. The male belief that women are solely responsibly for this is the cause of many unplanned pregnancies. Either have a vasectomy or wrap it up every time. A woman needs to either have a tubal ligation or get on hormonal birth control. Men who aren't doing their part really have no right to be upset about the outcome. The same for women.
I'm confused. The man has every right to not be involved in raising the child. All they have to do is contribute funds to aid the woman's effort to raise the child.
I'm not too well-versed with laws regarding the matter, but I'd hope the reverse arrangement would also apply should the woman not wish to raise the child when the man does (seems it does in my area).
“If [She] was broke she shouldn’t be fucking.” Matt, I am genuinely disappointed in you. Calling a man a dead beat dad for giving up his parental rights? Why don’t you apply that to the opposite sex? Why don’t you call all parents who give there children up for adoption dead beat parents?
👏
Like a lot of commenters, this is one of the very few times I've disagreed with Matt.
If you enter a sexual relationship with the understanding that neither party wants a child, neither party should be forced to be responsible for any part of that childs life, whether that be the man or the woman.
If you enter a sexual relationship with both sides saying they don't want to be a parent, but one changes their mind after the fact, neither party should be forced to be responsible for any part of that childs life, whether that be the man or the woman.
If you enter into a relationship where one person is deceiving the other about not wanting to be a parent, neither party should be forced to be responsible for any part of that childs life, whether that be the man of the woman.
If the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy, that should definitely be their decision, but neither party, whether mother or father, should be forced to be responsible, physically or financially, for the childs life at ay point.
So basically you want consequence free sex, and don’t want to be culpable for your actions. Got it.
Trouble with your “no one should be responsible” thing is that after birth, there is a child with rights to financial support.
Child support isn’t really parenting.
@CM if you agree that you don't want something, and when protection fails you go back on your side and choose to keep it; yes, I think he should be able to opt out, not 100% consequence free, let him pay the bill as she pays physically, but she gets minimal consequence to opt out, compared to 18 years of indentured servitude
@@75ur15 paying for support to the child you created by your negligence (yes, not taking every precaution available and only relying on one method is negligence) is not - in any sense - indentured servitude. Just stop.
No one is kidnapping his sperm and making him be a parent. His risk of being a parent is higher than hers because he’s not the one that has to decide if they abort. Therefore, he has an extra responsibility to take more than one precaution if he doesn’t want to be a parent.
It’s that simple.
@CM any argument to make where she has the choice to abort and he has no out makes it that way. Any argument made saying be cautious could be used against abortion, if she has an out so should he, and he does not. One specific case where it is very much indentured servitude, there are cases where an underage male is taken, and later forced to lay child support to his attacker. That is a worst case scenario. My meaning doesn't require that but it is worse that way. Being forced into a situation where you have no control (and SHE DOES) is indentured servitude, either pay up, or go to jail, what else do you call that?
@CM got the defintion:
Indentured servitude is a form of labor in which a person is contracted to work without salary for a specific number of years. The contract, called an "indenture", may be entered voluntarily for eventual compensation or debt repayment, or it may be imposed as a judicial punishment.
Forced by judicial punishment to work to pay off a debt......for a specific number of years......18 in this case
As a pro choice woman, I find this an interesting topic and wouldn't have been as "stern" on this as Matt was. I do feel like there is more conversation and consideration to be had..
I would agree that the man cannot force the woman to carry the child to term, if the woman doesnt want to. Whether to carry the baby to term or not, should he her choice completely, for reasons stated.
However, I also feel like, the woman cannot force the guy to take responsibility and be a parent, if he doenst want to. I mean, I would hope the man would want to, but you cannot force someone to want to have a child. If there was no deception involved, and the child was truly conceived by an honest accident...
Of course if the man wouldn't want to take responsibility, this could impact the decision of the woman on whether to carry to term or not. However, I think, in all honestly, that it would be wise to consider whether you want to have a child with a certain person or not. Whether you would want to be a single mom. Whether you'd want to have a child growing up who will know they were/are unwanted by one of their parents. Because no matter how you spin it, that is the reality in that case. Cause even if the law would dictate a man to at a minimum pay child support, the law cannot force a (good) relationship between parent and child..
Just my 2 cents.
It's a really tricky question. And there is no easy answer. And no way to make it TRUELY fair, because biology simply doesn't work the same for both sides.
Which is why it angers me, that Matt is being so inconsidered and such a dick to the caller (calling it "stern" is an understatement, he just being mean here).
I lean towards allowing the man to opt out as well, given that if SHE can have a say if she (legally) wants to become a parent, so should he. However, obviously, as you point out, if the man just opts out, and the woman doesn't have the ways to support herself and the child, this could almost be considered coersion towards an abortion.
That's what I mean when I say that there is no fair option here, because nature didn't make it fair.
And which is why this is a topic where I see no justification to jump at people's throats for disagreeing. Because as far as I can tell, nobody can provide an option that is NOT unfair in one way or another.
Oh, of course, minor detail here, but for completeness sake it needs to point out:
If the woman gets an abortion, the cost of it should be shared. In that case, it's the woman's choice, and he will just have to pay up if she makes that choice. He shouldn't be able to opt out of that, even if he wanted her to have the baby.
What pisses me off in this whole conversation is 3 separate things:
1) the biological male is the one that introduces his sperm into her body with his direct and conscious actions.
For women, whether the egg comes out is not under her direct control, nor where the egg comes out. Tyler wants to whine that women get this extra choice that he doesn’t? Well, men have an extra choice that women don’t.
Women can’t have sex but pull out and ovulate away from their body. Men CAN wear a condom and pull out. Both of these measures, when used together, are more effective than anything the woman can do for birth control that doesn’t involve major surgery. So he is the one that is the MOST culpable because pregnancy for women is completely autonomic. That’s why - when a couple is trying to conceive - insemination needs to be planned around ovulation and not the other way around.
2) financial responsively - while it’s an ELEMENT of parenthood - is not parenthood. He doesn’t have to see or even speak to the child. He doesn’t have to parent the child at all. He is simply financially responsible for the burden he placed. Much like I’m financially responsible for any car accident I cause. That’s why I have insurance because I cannot afford to self insure.
3) the child is now a person. The deed is done. And that person has rights to parental obligations for its care. It didn’t ask to be born, and took no part in the liability of sex. The woman and the man did. And while liability never extends past the barrier of the skin…his income is not part of his body.
He has zero responsibility to a fetus. He has responsibility to the child that grows from that fetus.
“There are consequences to having sex” sounds like a pro life argument.
matt is wrong on this one. you can have sex without money. and specially if you are broke, you have sex with no condom.
@@josecampechano6136 why is he wrong? It has nothing to do with money. Firstly, there are programs out there specifically made to dole out free condoms to people with little money or in otherwise difficult situations to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There are possibly organizations that could provide vasectomies gratis or inexpensive for men in difficult situations. There are people, as Matt stated, who are barren for whatever reason who couldn’t conceive and maybe it’s worth only engaging in unprotected intercourse with people you know absolutely cannot conceive (including doing something with yourself) rather than rolling the dice.
@@joshuaklein8429 there are sexual accidents. and the efficiency of the condoms are not 100%. in other words everytime people have sex( hetero) might end up in an unwanted child, for any of the actors. it is fucked up.
@@joshuaklein8429 i always find funny when you americans speak as if your country is the entired world. it is not. in other countries, people really have no control over how many kids they have.
Well yes, the consequence is to have a baby.
I'm only half way through this, but matt appears to be arguing against abortion? You're not free from the consequences, you have to just deal with it, its a risk you take. You know that going into it... its part of being a responsible adult.
If I didn't know better I'd think this guy was debating a pro lifer...
Talk about cognitive dissonance.
No. He's not arguing against abortion. He's arguing against trying to apply the same rule to the pregnant person and the person who contributed the sperm. The two are not the same in the way pregnancy will impact them. They both have the right to bodily autonomy, but since pregnancy requires only one of their bodies, only that person has the right to terminate or maintain the pregnancy.
@@mewho6199 so, if a woman violates a man and gets pregnant the man has to stay with her and/or pay the bill because of it?
@@mewho6199 the man is PUT IN JAIL if he doesn't pay. Where's HIS autonomy?
@@joseespinoza2615 In most states, possibly all, rape does remove financial obligation. If that's not the case everywhere, I'm pretty sure almost every woman would agree it should be. No one is arguing that men that are raped should be forced to take responsibility for a child that resulted.
@@saje239 not in venezuela thou.
But I understand your point, (and actually I'm happier now that I know that)
think I went over the board with my comment, even if it's a case in some places.
So, returning to the point. All I argue is that the choice of being a parent should be taken by both parties. Of course, I agree that both parties have to help financially for the abortion, if the abortion is the option taken at the end.