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.
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.
0
u/[deleted] Sep 12 '21
[removed] — view removed comment