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.
“She” gets to face the consequences: pregnancy. “She” now has to terminate it or carry it to term and decide whether to keep it or give it up for adoption. Those are the consequences.
Precisely, so let her decide. And let the “man” decide if he wants to support a child. If not, let the state intervene and provide child support. As I’ve stated elsewhere in this thread, why is it that people go all in on Medicare for All, free college, and all that jazz, but when it comes to universal child support, they suddenly become these austerity hawks and start using borderline gender essentialist shit to say “well the man should pay.” Here is how I feel about that: https://pasteboard.co/JDHZ3v3.jpg)
Abortions, just like giving birth, can be unpleasant and traumatizing.
This reminds me of the shaming rhetoric used in the 90s about abortions being “safe, legal and rare” (https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-48-shifting-media-representations-of-abortion-part-i).
Precisely, so let her decide. And let the “man” decide if he wants to support a child.
Not the same thing. Insulting. Go gay.
austerity hawks and start using borderline gender essentialist shit to say “well the man should pay.”
Here, have this one: if a man can convince a woman to carry the pregnancy to term and he becomes the main guardian, she should be forced to pay child support as well.
Then in half a millennium when we have achieved full space gay communism and abolished the family unit you get to be a dumbass with your dick.
This reminds me of the shaming rhetoric used in the 90s about abortions being “safe, legal and rare”
Today in “recognizing the existence of ob/gyn abuse and the severity of gynecological care” we have “this is anti-abortion”
Just have the state pay if one or both partners don’t want the child. Not a huge problem.
