It is a false equivalence to state that if women can decide to not be a mother then a man can decide to not be a father because the father is not the one bearing the child.
Your describing an imagined right of the father to financially threaten the mother into an abortion. But its all a bluff. If she bears the child then the child is real and has rights of its own. It has positive rights to full support and that negates whatever imagined negative rights for the father to not be the father. (Again socialized child support resolves all these issues.)
ah you're in Denmark so you actually have socialized child support. forgot that.
yeah if you dont have that socialized child support you're basically attempting to control a woman's body by threating to not pay taxes. but with socialized child support its already paid so.
It is a false equivalence to state that if women can decide to not be a mother then a man can decide to not be a father because the father is not the one bearing the child.
deleted by creator
See my response here. My new point #2: In this case the child is real and does exist.
deleted by creator
Your describing an imagined right of the father to financially threaten the mother into an abortion. But its all a bluff. If she bears the child then the child is real and has rights of its own. It has positive rights to full support and that negates whatever imagined negative rights for the father to not be the father. (Again socialized child support resolves all these issues.)
deleted by creator
ah you're in Denmark so you actually have socialized child support. forgot that.
yeah if you dont have that socialized child support you're basically attempting to control a woman's body by threating to not pay taxes. but with socialized child support its already paid so.