Sure, and that’s why no one here is saying the father should have any choice in whether a medical abortion happens. Everyone should have bodily autonomy, one of my reasons for supporting abortion.
However, my other, arguably larger reason for supporting abortion is that I don’t think anyone should be forced to be a parent.
If we had some sort of socialized child sponsorship, sure. But in absense of that, forcing a person to take responsibility for a child is better than letting the child be unsupported.
Another big difference here is that the child is real and does exist. It isn't an embyro or hypothetical. It is alive and responsibility must be accepted for it.
Another big difference here is that the child is real and does exist.
No? No it isn’t. That’s the whole point of this post. This decision would be made when there is an embryo, when the mother still has the opportunity to get an abortion.
But also, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a solution to child poverty is to force a random dude that wanted nothing to do with it to pay for it.
The child doesn’t have to exist. This choice is made when there is still a chance to get an abortion. If not having child support from the father makes you not want a child, abort the pregnancy.
I think part of my thought on this is that for me and my current and past partners, abortion has always been the default choice. We don’t, and never have wanted kids. Before we had sex the first time, we agreed if she got pregnant she’d get an abortion.
If you don’t want to be a parent, you shouldn’t have to be. Full stop.
Let's restate your position here. You want the father to be able to financially coerce the mother into abortion. How is that good?
Look everything you're saying makes perfect sense in the context of socialized child support. But if the mother decides to bear the child then it must be fully sponsored. The child's positive right to support trumps your negative right abandon fathership. Socialized child support would resolve the conflict but I'm talking in its absence.
But if the mother decides to bear the child then it must be fully sponsored. The child’s positive right to support trumps your negative right abandon fathership.
But this is a decision being made before the existence of a child and therefor before it has any rights to speak of. We’re not talking about the rights of a child vs the rights of a father, we’re talking about the rights of a potential father vs the rights of a potential mother. And I don’t think the right of the mother to not have an abortion trumps the right of the father to not have a child.
If the options are financially coercing someone into getting a very common medical procedure or legally coercing someone into what is ultimately a form of involuntary servitude (even if it’s the lightest form of it), I pick the first one. Like I said though, I view abortion as the default option. Unless you got pregnant deliberately with a full plan for raising the child, you should get an abortion.
If the options are financially coercing someone into getting a very common medical procedure or legally coercing someone into what is ultimately a form of involuntary servitude
common medical procedure is doing a lot work here... That medical procedure is on the woman's body. Your are describing a man controlling a woman's body by threatening to not pay taxes. A true :libertarian-approaching: dream.
But also, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a solution to child poverty is to force a random dude that wanted nothing to do with it to pay for it.
The way it was explained to me is that the power to force men to pay child support is power for women, end of story. It advantages women and harms men and that's all anyone needs to know.
Women also have to pay child support in situations where a woman gives up custody to a man. Child support isn’t this thing that only men ever have to pay, that’s not how it works- oh wait you made your account two hours ago, lol. I’m done putting effort into this comment
Sure, and that’s why no one here is saying the father should have any choice in whether a medical abortion happens. Everyone should have bodily autonomy, one of my reasons for supporting abortion.
However, my other, arguably larger reason for supporting abortion is that I don’t think anyone should be forced to be a parent.
If we had some sort of socialized child sponsorship, sure. But in absense of that, forcing a person to take responsibility for a child is better than letting the child be unsupported.
Another big difference here is that the child is real and does exist. It isn't an embyro or hypothetical. It is alive and responsibility must be accepted for it.
No? No it isn’t. That’s the whole point of this post. This decision would be made when there is an embryo, when the mother still has the opportunity to get an abortion.
But also, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that a solution to child poverty is to force a random dude that wanted nothing to do with it to pay for it.
The child is going to exist or else it a non issue. We're talking about paying child support. You dont pay child support for an embryo.
You want socialized child support. Thats good. I want that to. Father abortion makes sense in that context.
The child doesn’t have to exist. This choice is made when there is still a chance to get an abortion. If not having child support from the father makes you not want a child, abort the pregnancy.
I think part of my thought on this is that for me and my current and past partners, abortion has always been the default choice. We don’t, and never have wanted kids. Before we had sex the first time, we agreed if she got pregnant she’d get an abortion.
If you don’t want to be a parent, you shouldn’t have to be. Full stop.
Let's restate your position here. You want the father to be able to financially coerce the mother into abortion. How is that good?
Look everything you're saying makes perfect sense in the context of socialized child support. But if the mother decides to bear the child then it must be fully sponsored. The child's positive right to support trumps your negative right abandon fathership. Socialized child support would resolve the conflict but I'm talking in its absence.
But this is a decision being made before the existence of a child and therefor before it has any rights to speak of. We’re not talking about the rights of a child vs the rights of a father, we’re talking about the rights of a potential father vs the rights of a potential mother. And I don’t think the right of the mother to not have an abortion trumps the right of the father to not have a child.
If the options are financially coercing someone into getting a very common medical procedure or legally coercing someone into what is ultimately a form of involuntary servitude (even if it’s the lightest form of it), I pick the first one. Like I said though, I view abortion as the default option. Unless you got pregnant deliberately with a full plan for raising the child, you should get an abortion.
common medical procedure is doing a lot work here... That medical procedure is on the woman's body. Your are describing a man controlling a woman's body by threatening to not pay taxes. A true :libertarian-approaching: dream.
The way it was explained to me is that the power to force men to pay child support is power for women, end of story. It advantages women and harms men and that's all anyone needs to know.
Women also have to pay child support in situations where a woman gives up custody to a man. Child support isn’t this thing that only men ever have to pay, that’s not how it works- oh wait you made your account two hours ago, lol. I’m done putting effort into this comment
deleted by creator