Long story short: You believe that feminism has already gone so far that women have more rights than men, right?
Still they make less money,
bear the cost/burden of child birth,
are more likely to care for children,
are more likely to be physically abused by their partners,
more likely to be killed by their partner,
All the arguing about whether "women have more rights than men" is part of the problem
1. Intact genitalia - males don't have this right
2. The right to vote and receive financial aid - males only receive these benefits if they sign up for Selective Service
3. The right to choose parenthood - males have to pay for a child even if they don't want to. Women can choose to give up their child for adoption. A male can not choose not to be a parent.
How about getting a vasectomy? That'd probably do the trick.
Moreover, having to engage in genital mutilation so as to avoid being tricked/lied/forced into fatherhood is hardly progressive.
If you value bodily autonomy (which I really hope you do – otherwise this discussion is kind of pointless) the only person who can decide what happens with their own body is the actual pregnant person – and no one else. This consequently means that we can only put this decision into their hands. It’s a function of the biological difference.
I mean, misogynist assholes like to bang on and on and on about biological differences (most often referring to things we don’t even really know are biological differences) and how those make it imperative to treat genders differently – but here we have a crystal clear example of a biological difference leading to different options for different people – and suddenly that’s no ok?
Also, no one can force anyone into parenthood since, you know, it’s necessary to at least have sex for that. All the rest is a function of where the baby is actually growing.
A woman can make a man pay. A man can't make a woman pay, she can just give the child up because she HAS MORE RIGHTS to the child.
Safe havens are about saving babies’ lives, not their parents.
Also, no one can force anyone into parenthood
We are discussing whether men or women have more rights. The ability that women have to force men into parenthood is a clearcut example of women having more rights than men, regardless of whether one agrees with the the existence of this right or not. Moreover, the critical cases here have nothing to do with "bodily autonomy", that's a smoke screen. They have to do with alimony. A woman can rape a man, get pregnant that way and the biological father has to pay alimony [1]. A woman can steal a man's sperm, get pregnant and the biological father has to pay alimony [2]. That's outrageous! What are you doing to redress this injustice?
As an aside, referring to "misogynist assholes" is rarely helpful.
[1] http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/5...
[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/...
That the mother has the ability to not make the kid exist in the first place is a function of where the baby grows up, nothing more, and basically completely unrelated to that.
Can we please talk about this basic doctrine and not weird edge cases?
If the kid exists both parents are responsible for it, no exceptions.
The current way of dealing with things is kid-centered. Once a kid is there it needs to be taken care of and both parents share that responsibility. Wanting to wriggle out of this responsibility is, frankly, highly immoral.
Also, conception doesn’t impact bodily autonomy (of the person who is no pregnant). I find it shocking that you would jump to rape rhetorics for your political aims.
Your doctrine would in practice massively disadvantage both women and kids
The current way of dealing with things is kid-centered.
Once a kid is there
Once a kid is there
conception doesn’t impact bodily autonomy
Of course he can't violate a woman's right to her own body and terminate a pregnancy at her risk, or prevent a termination (how would that work actually?).
Seduction of teenage boys by adult women is both ridiculously easy and quite rare at the same time... One of the few crimes were the victim thinks he got lucky...
And child support mainly takes into account who's the parent of whom
One of the few crimes
you promised to take care of your wife
I take you, ..., to be my husband and I promise before God and all who are present here to be your loving and faithful wife, as long as our lives shall last. I will serve you with tenderness and respect, and ...
It's a sexist standpoint to assume that all the wealth belongs to the husband, or that he earned it alone, even when the wife never got a paycheck.
Nobody says that house etc should automatically go to the husband. It should go to those who put the work in to build/buy the property. There are cases, alas rare as of 2015, where this is the wife. In this case, the house should go to the wife. However, as you know well, in the vast majority of cases, this is the husband. Staying at home is not really work. So de facto the contemporary practise of US divorce courts massively violates husbands' rights. As simple fix would be to institute (1) no fault = no alimony, and (2) shared 50/50 custody as norm. Anything else is sexism and cannot legitimately be defended.
If you dont believe me consider that such abuse is most common among lesbians.