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.
Fuck no, the state should become the sole domain of the working class, the capital class should be tossed outside its protection, so they as a social caste can wither and die, this is less “means testing” and more total class warfare
Uh… Okay… but then who’s working class and who’s capitalist class? You said earlier that “rich” people should be forced to pay. Now you’re saying capital class. What are you trying to say?
Yes I’m using those terms interchangeably. Anyone’s whose majority income is accrued through direct capital gains and conscious investment in labor markets is a capitalist and should be “means tested” the fuck outta of any state protection
Working class are wage/salary earners and their dependents
Yes I’m using those terms interchangeably. Anyone’s whose majority income is accrued through direct capital gains and conscious investment in labor markets is a capitalist and should be “means tested” the fuck outta of any state protection
Then why not do it through a taxation system that’s less likely to trigger direct reaction (i.e. “they’re stealing my money to pay for them blacks!”).
Because that’s impossible, capitalists aren’t universally stupid, they’re class-conscious, as a social group they know their interests and will defend them, which is why social democratic schemes are politically unstable and temporary measures
The capitalists as a class have to be confronted directly and disenfranchised politically, materially, and organizationally
