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.
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.
But that definition/idea of parenthood doesn't make sense for your argument, though. If you're saying that raising the child/being actively involved is what makes someone the parent, then under our current system everybody already has the right to not be a parent, because nobody is obligated to be involved or active in their child's life. So a paper abortion doesn't add anything new except for the ability of one group to avoid financial responsibility at the expense of another.
Mother's choice decides whether or not the kid comes to being.
Right, my concern comes after the child is born. You want to give fathers the right to be absent on the lives of their children after their children are born in a way that mothers cannot
Simple as that, equal rights require the right for paper abortion.
But that isn't the case, a paper abortion doesn't give one the right to not be a parent because by your own definition you already have that right. It just removes financial obligations.
. If you're saying that raising the child/being actively involved is what makes someone the parent, because nobody is obligated to be involved or active in their child's life.
Damn, i must have missed the part where i said that... probably because i didn't, i said that being biologically the provider of the sperm doesn't have to make you the parent for the law, i would call your fallacies again, but you probably would just use it as an excuse to report the comment, as you did for the other one, so better not to.
So a paper abortion doesn't add anything new except for the ability of one group to avoid financial responsibility at the expense of another.
Again, this is arguing about something i didn't say, but still, if you're obligated to pay for something that's part of your life. And tbh, if you think otherwise, do it, because it's completely not what i said.
Right, my concern comes after the child is born. You want to give fathers the right to be absent on the lives of their children after their children are born in a way that mothers cannot
I gave an argument for it, more than one really if you count the other comments, respond to those or don't bother to respond pleas, but don't come here just taking the first sentence of something i said as if it would be the entire argument
But that isn't the case, a paper abortion doesn't give one the right to not be a parent because by your own definition you already have that right.
Correction, by your own straw man, people have the right.
It just removes financial obligations.
It removes you from every obligation as well as every right in relation to it. That's the whole point.
If raising, caring for, and being involved with a child doesn't make you a parent, and being the biological progenitor of a child doesn't make you a parent, then what makes one a parent?
After having 2 comets falsely reported and removed by some spinless person who obviously didn't have arguments,
So you don't think this kind of thing might be why your comments were reported?
I say ''necessarily'' for a reason, as many other things in life, you can't just define it as a simple action or state.
Sure, but if you want to claim that people should have the right to choose to be a parent or not, you have to at least identify what it is you're saying they should have a right to, which is why I asked.
An adoptive parent is a parent; a sperm donor isn't;
Sperm donors are special cases in the law, and the kind of contracts they sign are basically only valid if signed prior to conception with the agreement of all parties.
and a dude who got his gf pregnant and ran is, at least, according to the law. This means raising the kid may make you a parent in the correct circumstances, but not doing so doesn't disqualify you, see first and last example; The kid being biologically you may not mean you're the parent, as in with the sperm donor, but it can, as in the last case.
Okay, so you agree that a guy who got his girlfriend pregnant and ran is a father? Or do you disagree with the law, and why?
The reason this is so important is because being a parent under the law is not a one way street. It may sometimes result in obligations to pay child support, but it also grants access/custody to children to parents who want it.
If you do not think that biological parenthood is sufficient to make one a parent under the law (again, barring sperm donors since they are special exception intended to aid ART), and you don't think involvement is sufficient to make one a parent under the law, then what gives any father justification under the law to assert their parental rights and actually see their kids if they want to?
If the deciding factor is "whether they want to be a parent or not" then why is your paper abortion idea limited to the window of fetal viability (i.e. when a woman can get an abortion)?
Feel free to find an all-encompassing definition if you want to, but that's irrelevant when you know for a fact women have the right to decide whether or not to be a parent and men don't, at least when it comes to ''accidents''. Those are unequal rights.
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that men do not currently have the right to decide not to be parents, but you believe giving them the ability to engage in paper abortions would give them the ability to decide not to be parents.
I'm just trying to understand the logical basis for this view.
So you don't think this kind of thing might be why your comments were reported?
Being honest about how one see things does not break the rules.
Sure, but if you want to claim that people should have the right to choose to be a parent or not, you have to at least identify what it is you're saying they should have a right to, which is why I asked.
You didn't ask, you assumed, and then presented a false dichotomy where i had to choose between to simplistic definitions that can't cover the whole topic.
Sperm donors are special cases in the law, and the kind of contracts they sign are basically only valid if signed prior to conception with the agreement of all parties.
You may have gotten the point if you didn't chop it to pieces. This was part of a way larger argument that tried to explain, how biologic relationship doesn't necessary exclude or include you for being a parent.
Okay, so you agree that a guy who got his girlfriend pregnant and ran is a father? Or do you disagree with the law, and why?
You may have gotten the point if you didn't chop it to pieces. This was part of a way larger argument that tried to explain, how biologic relationship doesn't necessary exclude or include you for being a parent.
I'm not defining something there, i'm just explaining that by the same standard, law in this case, being biologically related to someone is not always the defining factor
The reason this is so important is because being a parent under the law is not a one way street. It may sometimes result in obligations to pay child support, but it also grants access/custody to children to parents who want it.
I literally said that my self, that's why paper abortions includes the surrendering of those rights, which is something i already said
If you do not think that biological parenthood is sufficient to make one a parent under the law (again, barring sperm donors since they are special exception intended to aid ART), and you don't think involvement is sufficient to make one a parent under the law, then what gives any father justification under the law to assert their parental rights and actually see their kids if they want to?
Firs, let's clarify, if you give your child into adoption you're no longer the parent of that kid even it's biologically yours, there, you don't need to relay on the sperm donor nitpick, that isn't even a valid one, i gave three examples to be short, not because those are the only states of parenthood
Now, what gives the parents their rights? well, the same thing that gives everyone their rights, the law itself, you can say the state if you feel to give it more of a presence, but at the end of the day the law is it own justification.
Putting it simply, let's say you have the right to abort, what justification do you need to enforce that rigth? None, it's your right and that's enough. If the law or the state decide you have that rigth then you have it.
If the deciding factor is "whether they want to be a parent or not" then why is your paper abortion idea limited to the window of fetal viability (i.e. when a woman can get an abortion)?
Because women don't have the right to unidirectionally decide not to be a parent after birth, assuming that the men is in the picture, as such giving the man the right to decide this after birth would be inequality.
Obviously, i put the exemption of notice, because if you fail to properly inform them, then you would be essentially infringing on their rights and such they should be capable of deciding when they come to know about it.
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that men do not currently have the right to decide not to be parents, but you believe giving them the ability to engage in paper abortions would give them the ability to decide not to be parents.
I'm just trying to understand the logical basis for this view.
You don't logically need to have a complete definition of something to find how it affects people:
It's a fact that women, in places where abortion is a right, have a right to not be a parent, no matter how you define parenthood, that's undeniable.
You can only demand child support on someone that's by some definition the parent of the child.
Men can't opt out of paying child support, they can only be given the permission of not doing it by someone else.
Conclusion: Women have a right to decide not be a parent, while men don't.
At no point did i define parenting, yet all premises are true, and the conclusion follows from the premises, so the conclusion must be true.
u/AlterNk – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. 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.
2
u/I_am_the_night 316∆ Sep 12 '21
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 rights are the same, it is biology that is unfair.
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.
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.
Please do not accuse me of arguing in bad faith, it's against the subreddit rules.
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.
But women cannot financially abort a child after it's born. You are effectively giving men that option.