So a thought occurred to me, this may be outside of the scope of this sub but I see quite a few feminist/mra arguments here and other feminist/mra subs are either massively censored or don't contain any feminists.

Anyway here goes: whenever the prospect of men having the right to have sex and not be legally forced in to being a parent comes up feminists always reject that on the basis that the best interests of the child ought to come first.

No matter what the child is entitled to some basic standard of living, which the father must provide financially if nothing else, and that the child's right to this must trump his bodily autonomy, freedom, and any other concerns.

Literally the kids material wellbeing comes before the fathers rights.

Ok, so the principle is established that the childs right to some basic level of income trumps one of the adult parent's rights in every case. But why does this not apply equally to the woman?

It's pretty well established that poor mothers, single mothers, poor families (so married but earning very little), teen moms, etc don't do very well providing for their kids. This isn't a criticism, just an observation. A child born to an impoverished 16 year old highschool dropout is not going to have a particularly high standard of living.

However we've already declared that all children who are born are entitled to some reasonably high standard of living (they shouldn't suffer because of their parents choices) and that moral imperative trumps the parent's rights no questions asked.

So logically, following the exact same argument used to say men cannot have sex then not be coerced in to being a parent, shouldn't it be morally acceptable to force women who demonstrably cannot provide for a child in to having an abortion/using birthcontrol?

This would be a violation of her rights no doubt. But it would remove a child from living in poverty. And as we've already established when it comes down to parental freedom or child's best interests the child must always win. In this case it's suffering would be eliminated by it never existing.

So why don't we advocate for that with the same vigor we advocate for punishing men who commit the unpardonable sin of having sex? Is it right that the child should suffer because the mom made a bad choice? Do her rights come before the wellbeing of the kid?

It seems rather logically inconsistent to say that men must have no reproductive rights because it benefits the kid while defending a totally libertarian approach when it comes to women on the assumption that things will just sort of work out for the kid and either way it wouldn't be fair to limit her actions for some kid.

So which is it feminists?

/and no I am not seriously advocating giving women the same reproductive rights as men, that would be cruel. I'm pointing out that men should be elevated to the same level as women, which would be equality.