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.
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
I agree with you about social democracy, but at this point don’t we have to deal with more than a simple division between capitalist and working class? Seems like at this point in history it’s more of a spectrum than a binary. If that’s truly the case then what would you suggest? Also, let’s remember that there hasn’t been a real, successful socialist revolution in the imperial core/global north (at least to my limited knowledge). I don’t want to get into some weird revolutionary LARPing here.
Ironically it’s a spectrum created by social democracy, the natural result of class collaborationism blurring the lines, but the spectrum is shrinking, the lines are becoming distinct again
Piece by piece, sector by sector, the divisions between capitalists and the working class reform and regain their open adversarial nature; climate change, the falling rate of profit, uberization and digitalism all tearing down the last remnants of the class collaborationist ethos of Keynesian class détente and let’s be real the spectrum only existed in the first world, in the third world the class war has raged on unabated, the binary clear as day
Of course this conformation isn’t gonna happen anytime soon, I’m talking decades upon decades of future development, I doubt I’ll ever live to see it
let’s be real the spectrum only existed in the first world, in the third world the class war has raged on unabated, the binary clear as day
I agree with you here, but in that case do we just sit back and wait? Or are you suggesting that the only way to further sharpen the lines of division is to somehow “accelerate” them?
