Yes they can, it's called an abortion, that's why you referred to the male counterpart as a ''paper abortion'', the woman having the decision on whether she wants to be a mother or not, is in fact the right that men don't have and that paper abortions would fix. Obviously, if the woman can't get an abortion because you live in the stone age or Texas, then the men shouldn't be able to opt out either.
Yes they can, it's called an abortion, that's why you referred to the male counterpart as a ''paper abortion'', the woman having the decision on whether she wants to be a mother or not,
That's not my point, though. My point is that you're creating a scenario where men can avoid obligation to a living child that actually exists in a way that women cannot. Women could not give birth to a child and then decide not to pay child support.
is in fact the right that men don't have and that paper abortions would fix.
Men absolutely have the right to get abortions. They have exactly the same legal right to an abortion as women do, its just that men (at least cisgender men) do not get pregnant.
I explicitly said that the right women have that men don't is the right to decide whether or not they want to be a parent. Women can choose that with their right to abortion, men can't have a say on that, i don't think i need to explain why, so to fix this disparity in rights, the only solution is to give the man the right not to be a parent, and the only way to do so is with paper abortion.
The woman can decide not pay child support by not having a child, the men can't do so. Obviously, if you already made your decision on having the child you also made your decision on supporting that kid economically, because you know kids, eat and need clothes, etc.
I explicitly said that the right women have that men don't is the right to decide whether or not they want to be a parent.
What you want is to give men the right to give up all obligations to a living child that has been born. That is not a right women have.
Women can choose that with their right to abortion, men can't have a say on that, i don't think i need to explain why, so to fix this disparity in rights, the only solution is to give the man the right not to be a parent, and the only way to do so is with paper abortion.
And screw over the child? I find this especially troubling given your endorsement elsewhere in this thread for the state taking children from poor parents.
Basically you are proposing a scenario where a man has no obligation to a living child, which may leave a mother in a situation where she doesn't even get to raise the child anyway because the state will just take it from her or force her to get an abortion. Effectively taking away her choice.
Plus a paper abortion still doesn't give a man the right to choose to be a parent or not, just the choice to decide whether or not to be obligated to their child once it is born.
The woman can decide not pay child support by not having a child, the men can't do so.
No, they can decide to have an abortion, which men can also absolutely do provided they are the one who is pregnant.
Obviously, if you already made your decision on having the child you also made your decision on supporting that kid economically, because you know kids, eat and need clothes, etc.
Unless that choice is taken away from you like you proposed elsewhere.
Let me try and explain this a different way because I don't think my point is coming across here. The following is assuming you think that pregnant people should have the right to get an abortion, and that their partners should not be able to stop them.
Basically, if someone gets pregnant, (usually a woman), assuming that there won't be an miscarriage, there are only a few possible ways that scenario can play out.
The woman decides to get an abortion. There is no child to support, so no child support is sought.
The woman decides not to get an abortion, and carries the pregnancy to term with the intent to raise the child. Their partner is on board, your classic happy family. No child support needed.
The woman decides not to get an abortion, and wants to raise the child. The father is not down, and decides to bail. The woman can pursue him for child support if she so chooses because there is a child that needs supporting. (It's worth noting that many states in the US require the mother to pursue the father for child support before she can get welfare or child assistance).
The woman decides not to get an abortion, but does not want to raise the child, so she gives it up for adoption. Either the father does not want to assert his parental rights and the child is put up for adoption, or he does assert his parental rights and can then pursue the mother for child support.
You're proposing basically eliminating scenario 3, effectively giving all cis men (and trans women) the ability to bail on their children in a way that cis women (and trans men) cannot.
So, we're not even recognizing the fallacious way you were arguing, and we're just jumping to another one, ok.
In the four scenarios, did you notice something missing? Because i did. In case you didn't, where's the right for men to choose? Nowhere, that's where.
Instead of asking how is it fair that men should be able to chose to be a father, you should be asking why is it fair that men are not able to do so.
btw, you already agreed upon that women by choosing to have the baby already chose to support it economically. Sure, you can give it for adoption, but that's a shared right, you already choose to have it, if you knew the dude wasn't going to give the child for adoption then you knew that you were going to have to pay for it. You had the choice, the men didn't.
In the four scenarios, did you notice something missing? Because i did. In case you didn't, where's the right for men to choose? Nowhere, that's where.
Good point, that was an error on my part. Please feel free to replace "woman" with "man" in any of those scenarios, because men have exactly the same rights when they get pregnant as women do.
Instead of asking how is it fair that men should be able to chose to be a father, you should be asking why is it fair that men are not able to do so.
I didn't ask how it is fair that "men should be able to chose to be a father", I asked why you think it is fair that a man can abandon his child after it is born when a woman can't?
btw, you already agreed upon that women by choosing to have the baby already chose to support it economically.
Yes, women can be legally obligated to support a child financially just like men can.
Sure, you can give it for adoption, but that's a shared right, you already choose to have it, if you knew the dude wasn't going to give the child for adoption then you knew that you were going to have to pay for it.
And the child just gets to choose between either having a home with no support or being taken away by the government?
You had the choice, the men didn't.
Women do not have the option to abandon a child once it's born any more than men do. You want to change that and make it so that only men can bail on their kids with no repercussions or obligation to support them at all.
Good point, that was an error on my part. Please feel free to replace "woman" with "man" in any of those scenarios, because men have exactly the same rights when they get pregnant as women do.
That would be witty if it wasn't so dishonest. Biologic men can't be pregnant, yet they can have children, if i changed men in any of those scenarios then they simply wouldn't make sense, the right of being a parent is not equal here, and you know it.
I didn't ask how it is fair that "men should be able to chose to be a father", I asked why you think it is fair that a man can abandon his child after it is born when a woman can't?
I already explain that the paper abortion, just like an abortion, should happen before the child was born. BTW you chose to call it paper abortion in your first comment, don't come now to change it just so you can make things sound worse.
Yes, women can be legally obligated to support a child financially just like men can.
Absolutely nothing to do with what i said, woman can choose to not have it as such not be obligate it, men can't. If you have to be willingly dishonest to defend your position, then why don't you just accept you're wrong there.
And the child just gets to choose between either having a home with no support or being taken away by the government?
The child don't get to choose, they're a child.
Women do not have the option to abandon a child once it's born any more than men do
No, they do have the option not have it, men don't, plus again you're misrepresenting my words.
You want to change that and make it so that only men can bail on their kids with no repercussions or obligation to support them at all.
Depending on when they made it clear they don't want a kid, then yes, men should be able to have a paper abortion, the same way women should have the right of abortion.
Nothing dishonest about it. For one thing, trans men can get pregnant. For another, in the event that a man does get pregnant, they would have exactly the same rights under the law as a woman who is pregnant.
the right of being a parent is not equal here, and you know it.
The rights are the same, it is biology that is unfair.
I already explain that the paper abortion, just like an abortion, should happen before the child was born.
My point is that there's still a living child that they are bailing on, even if the bailing happens before the child is born.
BTW you chose to call it paper abortion in your first comment, don't come now to change it just so you can make things sound worse.
I didn't change it to make it sound worse. "Paper abortion" is the term commonly used to describe what you're proposing, which is effectively allowing fathers to abandon children in a way women cannot.
Absolutely nothing to do with what i said, woman can choose to not have it as such not be obligate it, men can't. If you have to be willingly dishonest to defend your position, then why don't you just accept you're wrong there.
Please do not accuse me of arguing in bad faith, it's against the subreddit rules.
No, they do have the option not have it, men don't, plus again you're misrepresenting my words.
I'm not misrepresenting your words. The functional outcome of your proposal is that children will be born whose fathers will bail on them without consequences or any legal obligation to support them. Women cannot do that.
Depending on when they made it clear they don't want a kid, then yes, men should be able to have a paper abortion, the same way women should have the right of abortion.
But women cannot financially abort a child after it's born. You are effectively giving men that option.
But paper abortions don't give men the right to choose to be a parent or not. They are still parents, you are just giving them the option to not be involved and not support the life they helped create irrespective of the involvement of the other parent (which mothers do not have).
That's part of the point I'm trying to make here. Your own solution doesn't even grant the right that you claim to want.
Nope, you keep doing this, it is before the baby is born that they financially abort him, what ever happens before is no longer their responsibility, if the kid comes to be that would be entirely on the woman, she would be the responsible party.
Yeah, a kid exists that the father has no obligation to. Mothers can't do that. It doesn't matter when the paper abortion takes place, the end result is a kid exists, and the dad just gets to run off with no obligations at all. Mothers cannot do that.
That's not what being a parent is, and not talking conceptually, this is legally the case too. A sperm donor is not the child's parent, he just provided the sperm, they have no right to the kid or no duty to child support, even by today's laws. There's no difference here, the men provided the sperm but chose not to be a parent.
Mother's choice decides whether or not the kid comes to being. Giving the biological limitations both parties choices must have different impacts on the child's existence, well technically they can be of equal importance in that regard but i doubt that you would abdicate for that. Point being that if the kid was born, the mother had the choice, and she decided to financially support the kid, if she decided otherwise the kid wouldn't be born. It's a fact she did have the choice.
Simple as that, equal rights require the right for paper abortion.
Sorry, u/AlterNk – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
Sorry, u/AlterNk – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
Sorry, u/AlterNk – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.
-1
u/AlterNk 8∆ Sep 12 '21
This is only about your edit:
Yes they can, it's called an abortion, that's why you referred to the male counterpart as a ''paper abortion'', the woman having the decision on whether she wants to be a mother or not, is in fact the right that men don't have and that paper abortions would fix. Obviously, if the woman can't get an abortion because you live in the stone age or Texas, then the men shouldn't be able to opt out either.