Permanently Deleted

  • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why would someone do that? If you aren't paying and have no connection to the child, there is to reason to do this.

    • captcha [any]
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • captcha [any]
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • captcha [any]
              ·
              1 year ago

              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:

              • GreenTeaRedFlag [any]
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • captcha [any]
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.