- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 4,106
- Trophies
- 1
- Location
- Darling
- Website
- eonhack.blogspot.com
- XP
- 1,868
- Country
The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery, and it uses the word "slavery."
I don't care if a man provided 100% of the genetic material. It isn't his body, so he has no say regarding what happens with the pregnancy. Whether or not his "life will be changed" by the outcome of the pregnancy is also irrelevant. We don't have a legal freedom from "life-changing events."
If a child is going to be brought into this world, it needs to be supported. I suggest you reread those paragraphs for more information.
If a man can prove that his sperm was stolen, I don't think he should have to pay child support.
The issue of whether or not a man should have to pay child support is different from the issue of whether or not a woman should have a right to bodily autonomy. A woman should always have a right to bodily autonomy, regardless of the circumstances. If a child is brought into this world, then that child needs financial support. The man who contributed half the genetic material to that child should be on the hook for some of that support. That isn't a violation of his right to bodily autonomy. He is not free from the consequences of his actions.
Following up on that, bodily autonomy only extends to the womb. Aborting against the father's wishes gives him potential grounds for divorce. If the woman's actions during pregnancy impair the rest of the kid's life, that can have consequences for her.