So you’re just going to pretend I made it up, eh?

Good job - you found ONE case. As opposed to thousands of others where the non-pregnant parent never pays a single cent.

Not to mention that my solution to that problem would be to not make the rape victim pay for child support. (Actually, it would be to give immediate child custody to the rape victim; he’ll then decide whether to keep or abandon the child. The rapist is clearly unfit to be a parent.) While I bet that your solution would be to… force pregnant people to keep the pregnancy.



Also, as I’ve already explained: you can’t compare “you must take care of a child with your own labor” with “you must let the child use your own organs / tissues to survive”. You like to pretend that only fathers have to deal with the former and only mothers have to deal with the latter; but that simply isn’t true.

Not to mention that, if we accept your fantasy world where both burdens are equivalent and where mothers should be forced to take the latter, you inevitably create an unequal situation where mothers get both burdens while fathers only the former.



Also, as part of abrogating their parental rights men need the acquiescence of the mother…

False.



and don’t get to have the child killed at their request.

False again. Men, exactly like women, get to decide about the pregnancies they’re carrying - but not about pregnancies carried by other people.



I really am getting a kick out of you attempting to conflate permanently removing organs to donate to other people…

Not permanently. Blood, bone marrow, and liver tissue all grow back.



with a baby temporarily gestating inside a womb and then being born.

You mean except for all the permanent consequences for the pregnant person?

But it’s nice to see how you just shot down another “pro-life” argument: “the right to life overrides the right to bodily autonomy”. Now you aren’t allowed to use that argument, either. (If you really believed that life overrides bodily autonomy, you’d be all for forced organs donations, aka violating people’s bodily autonomy to save other people’s lives. But you don’t do that. You believe that bodily autonomy overrides life - except in the one case where it’s a fetus’ life and the pregnant person’s bodily autonomy.) Again: you’re trying to play two different rulebooks - one for most people, and one that shits specifically on pregnant people.



I’d really, really like you to explain how an aborted baby continues to gestate.

Simple: according to pro-lifers, the baby doesn’t use the pregnant person’s body to survive. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether the baby is connected or separated from the pregnant person.



And the implication that the intention of abortion isn’t to kill the baby is likewise amusing.



That’s because abortion is the artificial termination of a pregnancy. Sometimes the fetus is already dead; sometimes the fetus survives. In both cases, the fetus isn’t killed.

But anyway, we already determined that you don’t actually care about the action/inaction difference. (Again, double standard. When it’s a pregnancy, you think there’s no difference; when it’s not a pregnancy, you think there is a difference.) So.

