I really don't see how that matters. What we are talking about is what happens after the pregnant one decides they want to be a parent. They has already consented to that harm, whether or not the sperm-contributor is involved.
That point was to highlight the false equivalence of saying if a woman doesnt have to be a parent then the man doesnt have to be a father if they dont want to. Being a father doesnt mean you have the physically give birth.
No one can actually make you be a father/parent if you dont want to but they can make you financially responsible for the child if its born. You cannot abdicate that responsibility if the child is born because it has the right to be sponsored. Trying to push the sole responsibility onto the mother is attempting to coerce her into an abortion. That is literally attempting to control her body by not paying money.
It's not a false equivalence, the pregnant party can give up the child for adoption after birth, leaving behind financial and material support. If this parent isn't forced to parent, nethier should the other.
Trying to push the sole responsibility onto the mother is attempting to coerce her into an abortion. That is literally attempting to control her body by not paying money.
No, no it isn't. Just because it makes abortion a more tempting option potentially, does that mean someone is manipulating her into that choice. Let's look at the reverse: if a pregnant person is planning on aborting because they don't want to give birth or have a child, and the other parent offers to adopt and pay for the whole thing, she just has to incubate, is that coercion? I would argue it's not, because it is still entirely the pregnant person's choice what happens. So if someone says "I'm not raising this kid, do what you like" it is the pregnant party's choice what happens still, this isn't coercion.
the pregnant party can give up the child for adoption after birth, leaving behind financial and material support.
:wtf-am-i-reading: Do you not know the nonpregnant party can claim the child and force the other to pay child support before they put it up for adoption? Child support does work both ways. The false equivalence is saying someone's right to not be a parent is the same as someone's right to not give birth. I dont really know what point you were trying to make or refute here.
Your counter is also not the same because you're offering to help vs offering to not help. In that example they would be expanding the pregnant persons options instead of restricting them.
Like think about what you said there. In one scenario you're saying "I'll pay for everything, but its still up to you to actually give birth" vs "if you have the child you'll be poor and destitute and the child will have a miserable upbringing". Do these two seem to be equally moral actions?
if you have the child you’ll be poor and destitute and the child will have a miserable upbringing
What the fuck are you talking about? having two parents does not guarantee material needs being met or the happiness of the child, and plenty of single mothers have been capable of meeting their children's material and emotional needs before becoming pregnant and throughout their upbringing. You are just furthering the patriarchy. You are saying a mans job is to support a woman and child, and a woman cannot make it on her own. Yes, it is hard. But a woman and a child do not need a man. And even if they did, if the inseminator did not trick, coerce, or violate the impregnated party, they are not responsible for the child unless they agreed in advance or afterwards! Your autonomy does not hinge on what others need. If you woke up one morning and were suddenly pregnant, and it was a miracle, there was no other person involved, you would have the choice to carry or not, no one else weighs in. No one else bears responsibility. So if you and someone else have sex, and you're not planning on getting pregnant but do, why are they responsible? If they used protection and it failed especially, but in any case carrying to term is your choice, not theirs, and it is their choice whether or not they parent the child as well.
Do not accuse me of supporting patriarchy when I'm not the one advocating for letting men use their money to "tempt" women into making decision
having two parents does not guarantee material needs being met or the happiness of the child, and plenty of single mothers have been capable of meeting their children’s material and emotional needs before becoming pregnant and throughout their upbringing.
Wow its almost like having child is a tremendous financial burden and the more money you have the easier it is. If the pregnant party doesnt have enough money on their own and the other party says "I won't pay" then that party is strongly coercing them into an abortion. Unfuck your mind for thinking this somehow means the "its the man's job to provide for the family". Its both parents jobs to provide for the family and in the vast majority of the time bother are needed. And - as you said - both are too often not enough.
The edge case of the pregnant party being wealthy enough to support the child on their own is what we'd all like though right? Perhaps there's some socialized child support to ensure there will be enough resources for the child. That'd resolve most of this. But regardless two points must stand:
if the child is to be born they must be financially supported
the partner should not be able to coerce the pregnant person's decision to bear or not bear the child.
"Male Abortion" hinges on the partner saying 'no' to the pregnancy in some meaningful way that makes the pregnant party abort. Its absurd that I have to explain to you that is patriarchy.
“Male Abortion” hinges on the partner saying ‘no’ to the pregnancy in some meaningful way that makes the pregnant party abort. Its absurd that I have to explain to you that is patriarchy.
No it doesn't. The post explicitly explained it means the male partner "aborting" in the sense that they legally have no relationship with the child. It does not require an actual abortion to occur. This is why I repeatedly stated there was no coercion, because it is not a decision about the pregnant partner at all.
They already can abdicate explicit parental rights to the child. Thats already a legal right that exists and isn't being litigated.
The question is if they can avoid paying child support. If the child is being born and we dont have some sort of socialized child support system in place, then abdicating child support cannot be allowed because that can coerce the pregnant party into an abortion.
Do what? I'm not sure what exactly this and that point to in "do that" and "do this".
If you aren’t paying
The issue is the other parent can force you to pay (this may not be law if your not from the US). The OP was asking if one can get out of paying by saying "I choose to abort" before the child is born.
The antecedent is "pressure an abortion." The ability to not pay, which is what the male abortion is suggesting, is what I'm talking about. If you gave everyone that right, that when the pregnant party decides to carry, has already made that choice, the impregnating party can just go "I don't claim this kid to my name, and I will not pay for it," there would be no reason to pressure an actual, physical abortion.
The pregnant party would always want to know if their partner is committed or not before making a decision because most often their ability to care for the child will require the second income.
Your scenario would never happen unless the pregnant party had enough money that they dont care if the other is committed or not. But in that case its a mutual agreement which is already legal.
Consider if your scenario did somehow happen and the pregnant party didn't have the resources on their own. Either they're going to struggle to barely provide for the child or they are going yo reconsider not having an abortion.
Either they’re going to struggle to barely provide for the child or they are going yo reconsider not having an abortion.
Meaning, I cannot stress this part enough, that they are making the choice. If you asked for money to medically transition and I don't give, I am not coercing you against transitioning, I'm just not taking part in it. There's no reason that, if someone pregnant can make the choice alone whether to raise a child or not, that the person who impregnated them should have the exact same right. Sometimes respecting everyone's autonomy leads to shitty situations, that doesn't make it okay to violate someone's autonomy.
You have no responsibility to assist me transisitioning. You do have responsibility to assist me raising a child if you got me pregnant and I choose to keep it. You cannot coerce me into getting an abortion an abortion more than you can coerce me into bearing a child.
Yes it is shitty but bodily autonomy trumps financial autonomy. Anything else is :libertarian-approaching:
Learn to fucking read. I'm tired of repeating this, this is not coercion because a physical abortion is not necessary for this. does it become more likely? Maybe. But it also might become more likely if you disclose you have a genetic disorder. That's still no coercion. So no, you don't have a requirement to help raise the child. And it doesn't violate bodily autonomy.
If they cannot support the child on their own and your partner won't support then abortion is the only viable option. Not paying forces that option. Not paying is the partners choice. Genetic disorders are nobodies choice.
I really don't see how that matters. What we are talking about is what happens after the pregnant one decides they want to be a parent. They has already consented to that harm, whether or not the sperm-contributor is involved.
That point was to highlight the false equivalence of saying if a woman doesnt have to be a parent then the man doesnt have to be a father if they dont want to. Being a father doesnt mean you have the physically give birth.
No one can actually make you be a father/parent if you dont want to but they can make you financially responsible for the child if its born. You cannot abdicate that responsibility if the child is born because it has the right to be sponsored. Trying to push the sole responsibility onto the mother is attempting to coerce her into an abortion. That is literally attempting to control her body by not paying money.
It's not a false equivalence, the pregnant party can give up the child for adoption after birth, leaving behind financial and material support. If this parent isn't forced to parent, nethier should the other.
No, no it isn't. Just because it makes abortion a more tempting option potentially, does that mean someone is manipulating her into that choice. Let's look at the reverse: if a pregnant person is planning on aborting because they don't want to give birth or have a child, and the other parent offers to adopt and pay for the whole thing, she just has to incubate, is that coercion? I would argue it's not, because it is still entirely the pregnant person's choice what happens. So if someone says "I'm not raising this kid, do what you like" it is the pregnant party's choice what happens still, this isn't coercion.
:wtf-am-i-reading: Do you not know the nonpregnant party can claim the child and force the other to pay child support before they put it up for adoption? Child support does work both ways. The false equivalence is saying someone's right to not be a parent is the same as someone's right to not give birth. I dont really know what point you were trying to make or refute here.
Your counter is also not the same because you're offering to help vs offering to not help. In that example they would be expanding the pregnant persons options instead of restricting them.
Like think about what you said there. In one scenario you're saying "I'll pay for everything, but its still up to you to actually give birth" vs "if you have the child you'll be poor and destitute and the child will have a miserable upbringing". Do these two seem to be equally moral actions?
What the fuck are you talking about? having two parents does not guarantee material needs being met or the happiness of the child, and plenty of single mothers have been capable of meeting their children's material and emotional needs before becoming pregnant and throughout their upbringing. You are just furthering the patriarchy. You are saying a mans job is to support a woman and child, and a woman cannot make it on her own. Yes, it is hard. But a woman and a child do not need a man. And even if they did, if the inseminator did not trick, coerce, or violate the impregnated party, they are not responsible for the child unless they agreed in advance or afterwards! Your autonomy does not hinge on what others need. If you woke up one morning and were suddenly pregnant, and it was a miracle, there was no other person involved, you would have the choice to carry or not, no one else weighs in. No one else bears responsibility. So if you and someone else have sex, and you're not planning on getting pregnant but do, why are they responsible? If they used protection and it failed especially, but in any case carrying to term is your choice, not theirs, and it is their choice whether or not they parent the child as well.
Do not accuse me of supporting patriarchy when I'm not the one advocating for letting men use their money to "tempt" women into making decision
Wow its almost like having child is a tremendous financial burden and the more money you have the easier it is. If the pregnant party doesnt have enough money on their own and the other party says "I won't pay" then that party is strongly coercing them into an abortion. Unfuck your mind for thinking this somehow means the "its the man's job to provide for the family". Its both parents jobs to provide for the family and in the vast majority of the time bother are needed. And - as you said - both are too often not enough.
The edge case of the pregnant party being wealthy enough to support the child on their own is what we'd all like though right? Perhaps there's some socialized child support to ensure there will be enough resources for the child. That'd resolve most of this. But regardless two points must stand:
"Male Abortion" hinges on the partner saying 'no' to the pregnancy in some meaningful way that makes the pregnant party abort. Its absurd that I have to explain to you that is patriarchy.
No it doesn't. The post explicitly explained it means the male partner "aborting" in the sense that they legally have no relationship with the child. It does not require an actual abortion to occur. This is why I repeatedly stated there was no coercion, because it is not a decision about the pregnant partner at all.
They already can abdicate explicit parental rights to the child. Thats already a legal right that exists and isn't being litigated.
The question is if they can avoid paying child support. If the child is being born and we dont have some sort of socialized child support system in place, then abdicating child support cannot be allowed because that can coerce the pregnant party into an abortion.
Why would someone do that? If you aren't paying and have no connection to the child, there is to reason to do this.
Do what? I'm not sure what exactly this and that point to in "do that" and "do this".
The issue is the other parent can force you to pay (this may not be law if your not from the US). The OP was asking if one can get out of paying by saying "I choose to abort" before the child is born.
The antecedent is "pressure an abortion." The ability to not pay, which is what the male abortion is suggesting, is what I'm talking about. If you gave everyone that right, that when the pregnant party decides to carry, has already made that choice, the impregnating party can just go "I don't claim this kid to my name, and I will not pay for it," there would be no reason to pressure an actual, physical abortion.
The pregnant party would always want to know if their partner is committed or not before making a decision because most often their ability to care for the child will require the second income.
Your scenario would never happen unless the pregnant party had enough money that they dont care if the other is committed or not. But in that case its a mutual agreement which is already legal.
Consider if your scenario did somehow happen and the pregnant party didn't have the resources on their own. Either they're going to struggle to barely provide for the child or they are going yo reconsider not having an abortion.
Meaning, I cannot stress this part enough, that they are making the choice. If you asked for money to medically transition and I don't give, I am not coercing you against transitioning, I'm just not taking part in it. There's no reason that, if someone pregnant can make the choice alone whether to raise a child or not, that the person who impregnated them should have the exact same right. Sometimes respecting everyone's autonomy leads to shitty situations, that doesn't make it okay to violate someone's autonomy.
You have no responsibility to assist me transisitioning. You do have responsibility to assist me raising a child if you got me pregnant and I choose to keep it. You cannot coerce me into getting an abortion an abortion more than you can coerce me into bearing a child.
Yes it is shitty but bodily autonomy trumps financial autonomy. Anything else is :libertarian-approaching:
Learn to fucking read. I'm tired of repeating this, this is not coercion because a physical abortion is not necessary for this. does it become more likely? Maybe. But it also might become more likely if you disclose you have a genetic disorder. That's still no coercion. So no, you don't have a requirement to help raise the child. And it doesn't violate bodily autonomy.
If they cannot support the child on their own and your partner won't support then abortion is the only viable option. Not paying forces that option. Not paying is the partners choice. Genetic disorders are nobodies choice.
I too am tired of repeating this. Good day.