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.
“Currently, society expects individuals to take on the burden of providing for a child. Therefore it should be considered fine and good for one parent to walk out and leave the child and remaining parent in a really precarious situation”
See, we can interpret your arguments in a bad faith way too
That is not a bad-faith way of interpreting their argument.
I bet you fifty (50) USD that @ofriceandruin has said something semantically identical to that somewhere on the Internet.
I’m saying that nobody should be in a precarious situation. If one partner wants an abortion then let them have it. If the other doesn’t want the raise the child then let the state help with aid. It’s not mutually exclusive, unless you’re operating on some sort of weird austerity mindset, or some weird Jordan Peterson “men are men and should pay” shit, or some other kind of zero-sum view.
The problem can be alleviated somewhat through social programs and the like, but beyond that I don’t know how we might reshape society in such a way that we have more safe and nurturing environments for children that would take some of the burden off of the parents.
“listen, I really support universal healthcare, but you gotta understand, at our present moment, it’s just not feasible… we gotta tighten our belts… we can’t just have it… oh but you wanna start a war with iran, well then here’s a blank check. Listen guys… I’m a leftist and I believe that all this austerity talk is just right-wing BS that has no basis in material reality… oh but when it comes to child support there’s ‘no money’ for it… guess we gotta tighten our belts, even if one partner didn’t want the kid.”
Lol please stop pretending that your comment was anything resembling good faith.
Societal aid for parents is indeed cool and good. I’m with you there. I think the source of contention here is that most people who argue in favor of “financial abortions” don’t also advocate for the societal aid stuff; there are a lot of MRAs out there who seem to get off on the idea of leaving single mothers completely destitute and resourceless. If you’re not extremely explicit about the fact that you’re not one of those MRA types, people will think you’re one of them.
