Abortion(do guys have a say?)

[The Alma Mater]

Taking away the right to breed is the only sure fire solution to that problem and no one wants that.

Oh, I don't know. If someone would be able to come up with a test that determines if someone would be a good parent, I would not object to people having to pass that test before being allowed to breed. Just like you need a license before being allowed to drive a car.

[Wiztopia]

Taking away the right to breed is the only sure fire solution to that problem and no one wants that.

Oh, I don't know. If someone would be able to come up with a test that determines if someone would be a good parent, I would not object to people having to pass that test before being allowed to breed. Just like you need a license before being allowed to drive a car.

I would love that because it would be completely unenforceable.

[The Alma Mater]

Oh, I don't know. If someone would be able to come up with a test that determines if someone would be a good parent, I would not object to people having to pass that test before being allowed to breed. Just like you need a license before being allowed to drive a car.

I would love that because it would be completely unenforceable.

Violation could be punishable by castration And removal of the child from the parents care, of course.

[DaWoad]

I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying at all. How can one handle a pregnancy in which the mother is unwilling to be a participant without abortion or incubators?

FORCED being the keyword in that sentence. A man only would want the women carrying his child to have an abortion if he did not want to become a father. If he were released of all parental rights and responsibility then there would be no issue. I think other posters on this topic have called this a paper abortion. I don't really know.

problems include
1) the ability of one partner to force another to have an abortion by, essentially, threatening them financially.
2)hurts the welfare of the child after it's born.

A man who doesn't want his unborn child aborted could come to some agreement with the child bearer to have her carry through with the pregnancy and relinquish parental rights and responsibilities afterwards.

that can already happen. Arrange an adoption of the child.

This agreement would likely entail an exorbitant amount of monetary compensation for the child bearer's services and could only occur WITH HER CONSENT.

noooo badness thing. being able to coerce a woman into having a child because she needs money and you have it would be a little to exploitative.

This probably wouldn't happen often but the man is given a chance to appeal to the women in some way and body sovereignty is maintained.

no? it's not?

it would be a nice change of pace to see a man paying child support to have brought a child into this world that he desperately wanted rather than paying a women to take care of a child that neither truly wanted.

that already happens. women don't, by default, get the child.

I also think if neither want to keep it than the cost should be split evenly for abortions or fees incurred during adoptions or what have you.

nice but not necessary, personally I think that a man should help if it becomes necessary but requiring it by law would be unjust.

This isn't a perfect solution and will likely be picked to pieces, but the idea is the man has some rights and the woman can't be made to do anything.

guys already have rights, allowing us to financially coerce women into having our children is ... iffy at best.

[Tahar Joblis]

darn

Why is it balls?

Ignores the welfare of the child, acts as financial coercion on the woman, and is not an equaliser at all

You're right that it's not an equalizer in the absolute sense; the woman maintains greater control than the man with just that change. In a relative sense, however, it is more equal, so it is indeed an equalizer in a very meaningful sense.

You're wrong about financial coercion. The only financial coercion involved in either the status quo or the status quo plus relinquishment being available to men is exercised by women on men in the status quo and in either scenario by either parent or the state on both parents after the window for relinquishing parental rights and obigations. "You don't get to take my money away from me when I didn't consent to this" isn't coercion. The man's financial support or lack thereof does not force the woman into any decision.

And about the welfare of the child... I'm totally unconvinced, and after examination, feel my traditional suggested heuristic ("If someone tells you to "think of the children," they are probably up to no good.") has not failed. Whenever someone says to think of the children, you should think very carefully about the scenario, and with a skeptical eye.

When I first heard about it, I thought the idea, presented under the name of a "paper abortion," was a silly idea and by no means equivalent to abortion. I still do not think it is by any means equivalent to abortion. However, it does offer the male biological parent a choice which is definitely already offered to women: That of not becoming a legal parent when unwilling to do so. On examining the details of the status quo, I have come to the conclusion that the status quo is in fact reprehensible, and that allowing a window of parental relinquishment to both male and female parents independently is a morally superior alternative.

The level of "think of the children" argument is no better than that which could be offered against allowing children to act in a manner corresponding to their biological gender (because they will get teased by other children for such a thing), against allowing no-fault divorce (because children are better off in a two-parent home than a one-parent home), against giving children a name other than a list of X most common names (because they'll get teased by other children), against raising children in a low-technology environment (because being raised Amish doesn't give them much chance of a successful integration into modern life), et cetera.

The actual net benefit to children of forcing legal paternity on unwilling fathers is uncertain at best, and this action involves clear moral wrongdoing and the legal system extant clearly fails to even attempt to meet the ideal of egalitarian treatment of both genders.

[Tahar Joblis]

no? it's not?

So you would support the right to opt into post facto institutionalized prostitution, but not allowing women to rent out womb space?

that already happens. women don't, by default, get the child.

Actually, speaking on a factual basis, they do by default get the child. In order for the father to get the child, he must demonstrate paternity, and in order for the state to get the child, it must demonstrate that the biological parent(s) are unfit. If nobody takes any action whatsoever, a child is taken to belong to its mother.

This is largely a product of biology; maternity is very easily established, and children come into existence co-located with their mothers, both factors which lead to women having "default" possession of a child.

[DaWoad]

no? it's not?

So you would support the right to opt into post facto institutionalized prostitution, but not allowing women to rent out womb space?

nope, I'm okay with renting out womb space. I'm not okay with Post facto bribery of a woman for her to keep a child she doesn't want. Far to many truly horrific possibilities spring to mind.

that already happens. women don't, by default, get the child.

Actually, speaking on a factual basis, they do by default get the child. In order for the father to get the child, he must demonstrate paternity, and in order for the state to get the child, it must demonstrate that the biological parent(s) are unfit. If nobody takes any action whatsoever, a child is taken to belong to its mother.

nope, it's taken to belong to it's parents. Should the parents breakup or divorce then action must be taken.

This is largely a product of biology; maternity is very easily established, and children come into existence co-located with their mothers, both factors which lead to women having "default" possession of a child.

I disagree, Parents, both of them, have "possession" of the child after birth. If there's a problem then action is taken. women do not by default get the child, parents do.

[GeneralHaNor]

There could exist plenty of ways to handle a pregnancy in which one party is unwilling to become a parent without forced abortions or incubators.
A woman's body is her own. A man's money and dna should be too. These aren't mutually exclusive.

A man does not own a woman's body. He especially does not own the fetus.

A women does not own a man's dna, nor his wallet.

[Tahar Joblis]

"Forced paternal obligations are approximately institutionalization of global stochastic prostitution."
...just sayin, folks...

So you would support the right to opt into post facto institutionalized prostitution, but not allowing women to rent out womb space?

nope, I'm okay with renting out womb space. I'm not okay with Post facto bribery of a woman for her to keep a child she doesn't want. Far to many truly horrific possibilities spring to mind.

Horrific? As in "Oh, well, I'll pay you money to bear the burden for nine months and then go be a single dad"? That's what the suggested option was.

The only part of that suggestion I found silly was requiring the woman to tell the man of her pregnancy; that's infringing on her right to medical privacy.

Actually, speaking on a factual basis, they do by default get the child. In order for the father to get the child, he must demonstrate paternity, and in order for the state to get the child, it must demonstrate that the biological parent(s) are unfit. If nobody takes any action whatsoever, a child is taken to belong to its mother.

nope, it's taken to belong to it's parents. Should the parents breakup or divorce then action must be taken.

This is largely a product of biology; maternity is very easily established, and children come into existence co-located with their mothers, both factors which lead to women having "default" possession of a child.

I disagree, Parents, both of them, have "possession" of the child after birth. If there's a problem then action is taken. women do not by default get the child, parents do.

You have provided absolutely nothing to materially dispute my presentation of the de facto world. You've just stuck your tongue out at me, said "I disagree," and then stated what you think ought to be the case.

Actual possession of the child falls initially in the mother's hands, and unless key actions are taken - e.g., establishing paternity - the biological father does not "possess" the child. Since initial possession is granted to the mother and subsequent joint or non-maternal possession is only established via certain legal actions, maternal possession is the "default."

Do you understand what is meant by "default"? It means what proceeds to happen if nobody does anything. (It is not, to be clear, necessary that the default is the most common option exercised. Indeed, in many cases, such as the form of contract in which one party provides money now in exchange for money later, known as a "loan," the "default case" tends to involve things that neither party really wants to go through with - defaulting on a loan is bad for the banker and bad for the customer.)

In the majority of births, someone does do something. The doc asks who the daddy is, the mommy points to the dude that came with her to the hospital, and he nods assent. It's a very simple sequence of events, but if cooperation breaks down, it ends up falling to action of the courts to resolve to any solution other than sole maternal possession of the child.

[DaWoad]

"Forced paternal obligations are approximately institutionalization of global stochastic prostitution."
...just sayin, folks...

[citation needed]

nope, I'm okay with renting out womb space. I'm not okay with Post facto bribery of a woman for her to keep a child she doesn't want. Far to many truly horrific possibilities spring to mind.

Horrific? As in "Oh, well, I'll pay you money to bear the burden for nine months and then go be a single dad"? That's what the suggested option was.

yep, for "exorbitant amounts of money". I'm seeing the woman who will be damaged for life because he "sold" her baby. What are you seeing?

The only part of that suggestion I found silly was requiring the woman to tell the man of her pregnancy; that's infringing on her right to medical privacy.

I can agree with that.

nope, it's taken to belong to it's parents. Should the parents breakup or divorce then action must be taken.

I disagree, Parents, both of them, have "possession" of the child after birth. If there's a problem then action is taken. women do not by default get the child, parents do.

You have provided absolutely nothing to materially dispute my presentation of the de facto world. You've just stuck your tongue out at me,

got over that at about age four.

said "I disagree," and then stated what you think ought to be the case.

no, I stated what is the case. The child goes to the parents.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ ... tative.cfm

Actual possession of the child falls initially in the mother's hands, and unless key actions are taken - e.g., establishing paternity - the biological father does not "possess" the child. Since initial possession is granted to the mother and subsequent joint or non-maternal possession is only established via certain legal actions, maternal possession is the "default."

and I disagree on the basis of fact. If the mother and father have a dispute in which possession of the child comes into question then, yes, action must be taken but, again, by default, the child belongs to both parents, see link above.

Do you understand what is meant by "default"? It means what proceeds to happen if nobody does anything.

yes. If nobody does anything the child goes to the custody of it's parents. If the mother and father dispute that for whatever reason then somethign happens.

(It is not, to be clear, necessary that the default is the most common option exercised. Indeed, in many cases, such as the form of contract in which one party provides money now in exchange for money later, known as a "loan," the "default case" tends to involve things that neither party really wants to go through with - defaulting on a loan is bad for the banker and bad for the customer.)

In the majority of births, someone does do something. The doc asks who the daddy is, the mommy points to the dude that came with her to the hospital, and he nods assent. It's a very simple sequence of events, but if cooperation breaks down, it ends up falling to action of the courts to resolve to any solution other than sole maternal possession of the child.

except that if no-one does anything, if no action is taken whatsoever, the child is not assumed to be solely the mothers. Unless I'm reading the various laws wrong in which case, go ahead and cite somethign that says the default position is that the mother has rights to her baby.

[Wiztopia]

A man does not own a woman's body. He especially does not own the fetus.

A women does not own a man's dna, nor his wallet.

She owns the fetus.

[Dyakovo]

A women does not own a man's dna, nor his wallet.

She owns the fetus.

Well, no... She does own and control her own body though... Something which "Pro-life" proponents seek to change...

[GeneralHaNor]

A women does not own a man's dna, nor his wallet.

She owns the fetus.

Maybe I need to throw out a hypothetical

I am gonna assume for the purpose of this argument that you are in the camp that says "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" if we accept this as axiomatic then you may follow me

Party A, and Party B engage in intercourse, for whatever reason (even through lack of planning or through defect) Party A becomes pregnant
Sex is not Consent to Pregnancy

Party A is free to choose from a whole list of options, Abort, Give Birth
If they choose birth, they can then choose from another list of options, Give Away, Keep
If they choose Keep, They can chose to demand Support from Party B, as it is "The Right of the Child to support"

At any point, if anybody says, "Party A should of kept it's legs shut" they are seen as an anti-choice goon, who want to control the bodies of others and view people as property to be controlled.

Party B has only one option, ask the Party A to Abort or Keep, which Party A can freely ignore (bodily sovereignty)
If Party A Chooses to Abort, and Party B wanted to keep, Party B loses, Party B cannot force Party A to keep (bodily Sovereignty)
If Party A Chooses to Keep, and Party B wanted abort, Party B loses, Party B cannot force Party A to abort (bodily Sovereignty)
If Party A Chooses to keep, and demands support from Party B, even though Party B expressed their desire to not be a parent and not have to be locked into an 18 year financial arrangement to "Support the Child as is it's right" Party B still loses, because the court will force it to pay, at risk of imprisonment if it does not.

At no point in Party B a free agent, it has no options and no right. However if anybody says "Party B should of kept it's legs shut" this is seen as an acceptable and valid point, as if Party B's consent to sex is consent pregnancy and parenthood as Party B is expected to be responsible for it's sexual behavior, as opposed to party A, who is not held responsible for it's sexual behavior

So which is it?
Is Sex Consent to Risk of Pregnancy, or is it not?
If it is not, then you cannot hold either party liable for the result
If it is, then you must hold both parties liable
It takes 2 to consent.

[Dyakovo]

She owns the fetus.

Maybe I need to throw out a hypothetical

I am gonna assume for the purpose of this argument that you are in the camp that says "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" if we accept this as axiomatic then you may follow me

Party A, and Party B engage in intercourse, for whatever reason (even through lack of planning or through defect) Party A becomes pregnant
Sex is not Consent to Pregnancy

Party A is free to choose from a whole list of options, Abort, Give Birth
If they choose birth, they can then choose from another list of options, Give Away, Keep
If they choose Keep, They can chose to demand Support from Party B, as it is "The Right of the Child to support"

At any point, if anybody says, "Party A should of kept it's legs shut" they are seen as an anti-choice goon, who want to control the bodies of others and view people as property to be controlled.

Party B has only one option, ask the Party A to Abort or Keep, which Party A can freely ignore (bodily sovereignty)
If Party A Chooses to Abort, and Party B wanted to keep, Party B loses, Party B cannot force Party A to keep (bodily Sovereignty)
If Party A Chooses to Keep, and Party B wanted abort, Party B loses, Party B cannot force Party A to abort (bodily Sovereignty)
If Party A Chooses to keep, and demands support from Party B, even though Party B expressed their desire to not be a parent and not have to be locked into an 18 year financial arrangement to "Support the Child as is it's right" Party B still loses, because the court will force it to pay, at risk of imprisonment if it does not.

At no point in Party B a free agent, it has no options and no right. However if anybody says "Party B should of kept it's legs shut" this is seen as an acceptable and valid point, as if Party B's consent to sex is consent pregnancy and parenthood as Party B is expected to be responsible for it's sexual behavior, as opposed to party A, who is not held responsible for it's sexual behavior

So which is it?
Is Sex Consent to Risk of Pregnancy, or is it not?
If it is not, then you cannot hold either party liable for the result
If it is, then you must hold both parties liable
It takes 2 to consent.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
It is already the case that only one party "is held liable" if the pregnancy is not aborted. Only the woman suffers any risk during pregnancy.
If the pregnancy is carried to term, both parties are held financially accountable.

[GeneralHaNor]

Maybe I need to throw out a hypothetical

I am gonna assume for the purpose of this argument that you are in the camp that says "Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy" if we accept this as axiomatic then you may follow me

Party A, and Party B engage in intercourse, for whatever reason (even through lack of planning or through defect) Party A becomes pregnant
Sex is not Consent to Pregnancy

Party A is free to choose from a whole list of options, Abort, Give Birth
If they choose birth, they can then choose from another list of options, Give Away, Keep
If they choose Keep, They can chose to demand Support from Party B, as it is "The Right of the Child to support"

At any point, if anybody says, "Party A should of kept it's legs shut" they are seen as an anti-choice goon, who want to control the bodies of others and view people as property to be controlled.

Party B has only one option, ask the Party A to Abort or Keep, which Party A can freely ignore (bodily sovereignty)
If Party A Chooses to Abort, and Party B wanted to keep, Party B loses, Party B cannot force Party A to keep (bodily Sovereignty)
If Party A Chooses to Keep, and Party B wanted abort, Party B loses, Party B cannot force Party A to abort (bodily Sovereignty)
If Party A Chooses to keep, and demands support from Party B, even though Party B expressed their desire to not be a parent and not have to be locked into an 18 year financial arrangement to "Support the Child as is it's right" Party B still loses, because the court will force it to pay, at risk of imprisonment if it does not.

At no point in Party B a free agent, it has no options and no right. However if anybody says "Party B should of kept it's legs shut" this is seen as an acceptable and valid point, as if Party B's consent to sex is consent pregnancy and parenthood as Party B is expected to be responsible for it's sexual behavior, as opposed to party A, who is not held responsible for it's sexual behavior

So which is it?
Is Sex Consent to Risk of Pregnancy, or is it not?
If it is not, then you cannot hold either party liable for the result
If it is, then you must hold both parties liable
It takes 2 to consent.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.
It is already the case that only one party "is held liable" if the pregnancy is not aborted. Only the woman suffers any risk during pregnancy.
If the pregnancy is carried to term, both parties are held financially accountable.

It seems to me that Party A has the ability to end that liability at will, but party B has no options
That is not a equitable arrangement, it's not even close to it.

[Tahar Joblis]

"Forced paternal obligations are approximately institutionalization of global stochastic prostitution."
...just sayin, folks...

[citation needed]

No, that's me quoting me. No citation is needed, just knowledge of the extensive discussion that's already happened in this thread.

yep, for "exorbitant amounts of money". I'm seeing the woman who will be damaged for life because he "sold" her baby. What are you seeing?

Oh, you think that "selling" your baby doesn't happen already?

"Damaged for life" is all up to her. The choice to relinquish parental rights is one that's already under her control. She can indeed sign away all rights to the child and allow someone else to adopt.

The only difference here, in the suggestion you were responding to, is that the person in question is the biological father, who has bribed her to not have an abortion that she otherwise would have. (Paying someone money to not have an abortion is not, to my knowledge, illegal.)

no, I stated what is the case. The child goes to the parents.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ ... tative.cfm

No; you stated the de jure legal theory - in principle, a child belongs to both parents - without respect to de facto reality or what I was saying, which you've done again. In practice, maternity is granted by default, while paternity must be established. Thus, the default is precisely as I put it:

Actual possession of the child falls initially in the mother's hands, and unless key actions are taken - e.g., establishing paternity - the biological father does not "possess" the child. Since initial possession is granted to the mother and subsequent joint or non-maternal possession is only established via certain legal actions, maternal possession is the "default."

You have not, in fact, addressed this.

and I disagree on the basis of fact. If the mother and father have a dispute in which possession of the child comes into question then, yes, action must be taken but, again, by default, the child belongs to both parents, see link above.

First the father must actually establish himself to be the father; and, indeed, in some cases, become aware of the existence of the child in the first place.

yes. If nobody does anything the child goes to the custody of it's parents. If the mother and father dispute that for whatever reason then somethign happens.except that if no-one does anything, if no action is taken whatsoever, the child is not assumed to be solely the mothers. Unless I'm reading the various laws wrong in which case, go ahead and cite somethign that says the default position is that the mother has rights to her baby.

Wrong again. As, precisely, I already said:

(It is not, to be clear, necessary that the default is the most common option exercised. Indeed, in many cases, such as the form of contract in which one party provides money now in exchange for money later, known as a "loan," the "default case" tends to involve things that neither party really wants to go through with - defaulting on a loan is bad for the banker and bad for the customer.)

In the majority of births, someone does do something. The doc asks who the daddy is, the mommy points to the dude that came with her to the hospital, and he nods assent. It's a very simple sequence of events, but if cooperation breaks down, it ends up falling to action of the courts to resolve to any solution other than sole maternal possession of the child.

The father, theoretically, has a right to his child. However, requisite to any such right being respected, paternity must be first assigned. Until paternity is assigned, which, as I pointed out, requires action, the mother is the only person the child "belongs" to.

Do you understand the meaning of the term default yet? Or of de facto (as opposed to de jure)? I'm getting a little tired of trying to explain what the word means when you're clearly missing the point.

[Tahar Joblis]

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

Correct.

It is already the case that only one party "is held liable" if the pregnancy is not aborted.

That party being "putative fathers." Mothers have the option of walking away from the whole thing at or after birth as well, an option which is largely only theoretically available to fathers, in practice available to fathers only with a measure of the mothers' cooperation.

It is only putative fathers who are in the unique position of being unable to choose whether or not to be legally bound to the obligations of parenthood; thus, only they are held liable. Mothers enter into liability only after several opportunities to choose to avoid it, and thus cannot be said to be held liable by an external force as fathers are.

Of course, if that's not what you meant by a single party being held liable, then you were flatly, baldly, and plainly wrong, as the only possible interpretation of your statement that is not counterfactual has been described above.

Only the woman suffers any risk during pregnancy.
If the pregnancy is carried to term, both parties are held financially accountable.

Only if paternity is established and the child is not abandoned at a safe haven or adopted in such a manner as to duck the issue of paternity.

[Tekania]

It seems to me that Party A has the ability to end that liability at will, but party B has no options
That is not a equitable arrangement, it's not even close to it.

No one said the arrangement is equitable. Nor should it be, because it is not equitable in reality. The risks of pregnancy/abortion are purely up to the woman, the man takes no direct risk in either pregnancy or abortion with the exception of the potential risk of financial liability (with the woman) should it be carried to term.... The post birth financial liability, however, has nothing to do with the rights of the man or the woman, but of the born child.

[GreaterPacificNations]

I think it is simple enough to separate the dispute.

Only women can choose to keep or abort a child growing in their body. Most would agree and fair enough.

What to do with that child after is a different matter entirely. Either one, both, or niether parents might be legal and responsible guardians. If the father doesn't want the child, he can ask the woman to abort it, or if she carries it to term, abort his paternal rights and obligations. This has been said before in this thread- so allow me to try and mix it up a little. I don't think of this as paternal abortion. Rather, an anagram; Parental abortion. Indeed, I think that both parents should have the right to abdicating their parental rights and obligations. Perhaps the expectant mother doesn't want to carry a child to term- the father very much wants it though. He can't force her to do it- but he could offer to take sole responsibility for it once it's out. She still might say no, of course, but you catch my drift. This is also relevant to cases of surrogacy and adoption.

The last facet was mentioned just now by Tekania. The rights of the child. I think it is fair enough to say that a child is entitled to at least one guardian. I wouldn't go so far as to say two. Anyhow, looking at it that way- I would say adoption is almost immoral. Carrying a child to term then giving it up to the remote chance of finding a new guardian via adoption is careless really. Though when I reconsider it, the state counts as the guardian there, so fair enough. In any case, before the last possible chance to abort a child, someone must be on record to be it's guardian. Either the mother, the father, or someone else, perhaps.

[Tahar Joblis]

It seems to me that Party A has the ability to end that liability at will, but party B has no options
That is not a equitable arrangement, it's not even close to it.

No one said the arrangement is equitable. Nor should it be, because it is not equitable in reality.

It should be as equitable as possible given the biological asymmetry. It isn't.

The risks of pregnancy/abortion are purely up to the woman, the man takes no direct risk in either pregnancy or abortion with the exception of the potential risk of financial liability (with the woman) should it be carried to term.... The post birth financial liability, however, has nothing to do with the rights of the man or the woman, but of the born child.

Which is why the father, and only the father, is in a position of being held to financial liability without volunteering for it? Note the mother is very much able to opt out (safe haven laws, adoption).

The born child has a right to support, so to speak. They do not have the right to some particular person's support - it simply suffices that they are fed, sheltered, etc by someone, whether biological, adoptive, or foster.

[Zanarkenisia]

It seems to me that Party A has the ability to end that liability at will, but party B has no options
That is not a equitable arrangement, it's not even close to it.

No one said the arrangement is equitable. Nor should it be, because it is not equitable in reality. The risks of pregnancy/abortion are purely up to the woman, the man takes no direct risk in either pregnancy or abortion with the exception of the potential risk of financial liability (with the woman) should it be carried to term.... The post birth financial liability, however, has nothing to do with the rights of the man or the woman, but of the born child.

Let's see where a biology argument takes us, it's perfectly logic that women get paid less that men since they are more a financial risk to a company(maternity leave)., women should be allowed to serve in the military since on average they are weaker than men, women shouldn't be allowed to hold office because the effect of monthly's on woman's temperament, women have smaller brains that men so they shouldn't be let into universities, men can't be raped by women because women have no natural tool to rape with and on average, men think for about sex than men.
Also, you don't think that having to support a person that consumes resources (food) for two people isn't a potential financial drag?
What I'm getting here is that it's perfectly okay to support biology based argument when it supports the obvious and apparent case that civil courts are overwhelming Misandrist

[Tekania]

They do not have the right to some particular person's support

The born child actually has a right to some particular person's support. That the right may be xferred to another willing party is immaterial.

[Knask]

The born child has a right to support, so to speak. They do not have the right to some particular person's support - it simply suffices that they are fed, sheltered, etc by someone, whether biological, adoptive, or foster.

And until the father can find someone who's willing to take over that responsibility, the duty remains his. Sounds fair to me.

[Zombieland v2]

Although i think that if the male doesn't want a kid but the mother does, the mother should take presidence because it is her sacrifice (shitting out a child)

But i guess that you are supposed to be equals

[Tahar Joblis]

The born child has a right to support, so to speak. They do not have the right to some particular person's support - it simply suffices that they are fed, sheltered, etc by someone, whether biological, adoptive, or foster.

And until the father can find someone who's willing to take over that responsibility, the duty remains his. Sounds fair to me.

He never opted in.

The mother does not have to find someone willing to take over that responsibility in order to opt out, although it is an option (de facto a unilateral option in many cases); she also has the option of legally abandoning the child with no liability after birth, or getting an abortion during the gestational period.

The only thing the father did was have sex with somebody. Forced paternal obligations amount to nothing more and nothing less than institutionalized stochastic post-facto prostitution, with the state playing the role of pimp.

We stopped forcing this obligation on women because we realized it was absolutely ridiculous. It's immoral and impractical to force parenthood on unwilling mothers. It's also immoral to force parenthood on unwilling fathers; and, IMO, does at best negligible net social good, once we pay attention to the full accounting of effects.