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