I had always assumed that if a man had gotten a woman pregnant, then if that pregnancy is carried to term, both partners should be financially responsible for the child regardless whether the man had wanted to have the child or not. The mindset being “they got them pregnant, so you have to face the consequences’”.
I was talking with some people online, and they asserted that if the man did not want to have the child, then they should be able to apply to be resolved of any financial responsibility towards caring for it. I was at first against this proposal, but I feel like I now understand it better. Our current legislation was created at a time where abortion was tantamount to murder, and since it was illegal, an obligation of financial responsibility was the only way to ensure that women weren’t stranded with children they couldn’t afford to raise. But now that we live in a world where abortion is legal (for now), and where abortion procedures are safer than carrying the child to term, there doesn’t seem to be a good argument for men still needing to be financially responsible for unwanted children. Men probably would still need to assist in paying for the procedure, but outside of that, I think they had a point. Please explain to me if there is anything I’m failing to consider here.
I also want to apologize for the binary language I used in writing this. I tried at first to write this in a more inclusive way, but I struggled wrapping my head around it. If anyone can educate me in how to write in a way that doesn’t disclude non-binary comrades, I would appreciate it.
All these responses to the effect of “if you didn’t want to have a child you should have been personally responsible for your sperm” reek of victim blaming, tbh. It’s akin to the line of thinking “you shouldn’t have worn that skirt if you didn’t wanna get raped by Senator Biden, Ms. Reid.” The same “when you freely give your sperm” argument could be applied to a woman to stop her from getting an abortion. Let’s not use that line of reasoning please. It’s shallow and tbh, kinda reactionary.
Others have said that if we lived in a world where the child was taken care of, they’d see no problem but for now we don’t live in that world so a man should pay. This also reeks of something like “well sorry Mr. Poor Person, if you couldn’t afford to eat fresh vegetables from the organic farmer’s market and instead ate mcdonald’s because you live in a food desert, you pretty much caused your own health issues. Listen I’d love to live in a world with no food deserts, but we don’t, so this is on you.”
I also worry that putting so much emphasis on the “sperm contributing partner” can lead to an essentialist line of thinking. I know the term is meant to not be essentialist but I can easily see it being construed as “yeah, it’s just like I always thought deep down, a man should pay.”
It’s clear that no one who wants a child should have the burden to take care of it. That’s society’s burden. All of this “we don’t have that world yet so let’s strap one or both of the people” sounds very reactionary tbh.
All these responses to the effect of “if you didn’t want to have a child you should have been personally responsible for your sperm” reek of victim blaming, tbh. It’s akin to the line of thinking “you shouldn’t have worn that skirt if you didn’t wanna get raped by Senator Biden, Ms. Reid.”
Post hog, chud.
