Great source, random internet person!
I thought you were trolling with that. Are you honestly ignorant of the ban on paternity testing in France?
If a woman wants to hand the man from whom she got pregnant (Does that meet your lingual standards?) their child that he wanted and run off, as countless fathers do, is she absolved from having to pay child support?
What? Can you rephrase this in english.
Also, is that an admission to my initial claim this sub has right-wing views on reproductive rights?
Are you suffering from a learning disability?
The right wing wants to force both mothers and fathers to be parents for the "sin" of having sex.
The MRM wants neither.
How can you take "wants to force men to be parents" to mean "doesn't want to force men to be parents"?
They are quite literally the exact opposite sentiment.
That's like saying the pro-life crowd and the pro-choice crowd are on the same side.
Never said it was, just that this sub tends to have less than savoury views on single mothers which confirms my suspicion of a right-wing slant.
Great source, random internet person!
Huzzah! I think this is the first time you've said one accurate thing. Don't blow it in the followup . . .
My major issue is coming at this issue with an axe rather than scalpel. If a man wants the woman to keep the child, how much say does he have? At what point does a man's wishes infringe on a woman's bodily autonomy?
. . . damn. Well you kept it going as long as you could. All that has been addressed.
At no point has anyone said that the ultimate decision to abort or carry to term isn't 100% the woman's.
Proponents of forced fatherhood such as yourself always seem to have this reading comprehension issue such that no matter how many times it is refuted you still come back with "forced abortions".
"Er . . .so like you guys want to force women to have abortions?"
No, that is the opposite of what we want. Women are and ought to be free to have abortions as they wish.
"So you're saying you want forced abortions?
I'm saying the opposite. The literal exact opposite. Forced abortions are abhorrent.
"Aha! Gotcha! You just said you wanted forced abortions!"
Sigh . . .
What about men who get cold feet around the time a baby is born and opt for legal parent surrender?
I would say that consent is not assumed (surely you can agree with that concept) so it's not a matter of getting "cold feet". He either opts in and can be a parent or he doesn't. If he doesn't during the pregnancy he can't come back and demand his rights later. So if he has opted in during the pregnancy he then has assumed legal obligations and cannot back out.
This is another one of those reading disability things where you will continue to come back with "aha, you're saying the father can bail at any point even if he's raised the kid for half it's life!" things.
What if he bails on a relationship many years after the birth and wants no financial responsibility?
Abortion isn't as affordable or accessible it should be
Cheaper and more accessible for a woman than a man. Surely you'd agree?
And if you want to fight to make it cheaper and easier you have my, and likely most MRAs, support.
, nor is contraception nor decent sex education.
So men can't have rights because women don't have it perfect?
The maladjustive, often abusive hell that are foster homes isn't something most people want to inflict on something they've carried for nine months if unable to find adoptive parents.
So only have kids you intend to keep.
What a nightmare world that would be eh? One where both parents sit down like adults and discuss the feasibilty of having a child and only do so when it can be brought in to a loving and supportive home with two parents capable and willing to support it.
Literal hell on earth.
You realize your system of forced nonconsensual parenthood means more kids going in to the system or being raised in one parent homes right?
Its an extremely complex issue exacerbated by the inherent unfairness of biology - these decisions rest on the mother's shoulders while the man throws his hands up and exclaim, "Not my problem!"
So like those with the power to make a decision bear the consequences of that decision?
To quote Roe v. Wade:
"Dubay’s claim that a man’s right to disclaim fatherhood would be analogous to a woman’s right to abortion rests upon a false analogy. In the case of a father seeking to opt out of fatherhood and thereby avoid child support obligations, the child is already in existence and the state therefore has an important interest in providing for his or her support."
So presumably you oppose the right women have to abandon their kid after it's born? Safe havens and adoption . . . nope. That is a child she chose to create. It needs support. Take her paycheck every month for 18 years or send her to jail.
Right? You support that yes?
This isn't anti-male, its pro-child who never asked to be born in a country where welfare is the devil.
Funny how "best interests of the child" only apply when it involves stripping men of their rights.
Divorce is bad for kids.
So are single parents.
Why do women have the right to do that to kids? Shouldn't we be "pro-child"?