Obviously the situation isn't symmetric and you agree, but I think there's an important clarification that a lot of people need to be making between the ideal policy and the practical policy.
Ideally speaking, I 100% agree with your policy that nobody should be forced to raise a child they don't want. This requires a state that (as a state should) ensures the wellbeing of every one of its citizens, to the point that even if neither parent wanted to have the kid, they would still be guaranteed a complete quality of upbringing and life.
Practically, we obviously don't have that. At that point, you're having to play a game of priorities: there's a child here and the state isn't gonna care for it and the mother isn't capable of providing full care either. Your two options are to disregard the child's right to a quality upbringing so the father can have their right to not raise a child they don't want, or disregard the father's right to not raise a child who they don't want in exchange for upholding the right of the child to have a quality upbringing.
Any argument about "deadbeat dads" is the capitalist propaganda working, this is a behavior of poor education and poverty and lack of access to birth control. Blaming the individual is excusing the society. However I'm still, even without invoking the "deadbeat dad" argument, going to say that the child's right to a quality upbringing takes priority over the father's right to not raise a child they don't want. Three reasons:
The right to a quality upbringing is more fundamental than the right to not raise a child you don't want.
The overall impact on society of the father being forced to raise the child is less bad than the impact of the child being raised without a complete and healthy upbringing.
Even under socialism, people are gonna have to do things they don't want to - on an individual level - for the collective good. In the absence of a state safety net for children, making people who don't want to do childcare, do childcare, is mandating the completion of an undesirable job for the good of society. Is the labor distribution equitable? No. Are there people who would likely be happy to raise children instead of their current job? Yes. But mandating that someone does it, and that someone being the biological father, is the best capitalism can do.
Going second thing first, I definitely don't want to imply that a "father" is necessary to raise a good kid, just that two caregivers and income earners is almost always going to be better than one unless one of those caregivers is an abuser, but that's an entirely different discussion (although I don't want to downplay the fact that forced parenthood might be a facilitator of abuse).
As for the first thing, that is a huge concession to ask of capitalism, even from the cushiest of cushy social democracies. Even the very forefront of social democracy only grants a year or two of paid family leave, and in many of those cases it's being demonstrated that the belt is starting to tighten and those benefits are on the chopping block. You really need like 10+ years of a full living wage for two and healthcare/other benefits, and then another 8 or so years of a full living wage plus guaranteed half-time or less work for the only parent, and that's if the kid is happy to spend a lot of their time with things like sports or after-school activities where they are cared for. I don't see any capitalist society making it that far in concessions to the proletariat before the backswing of capital reclaiming their wealth and power takes over.
again, thanks for bringing the thread here, I think you probably knew you were going to catch some heat and you did it anyways. I had to think for a while before I actually decided which way I stand and why which means it's a beneficial discussion to have as a community imo, I see a lot of people conceding certain points and changing their minds, you included, in a lot of threads here and that's good :stalin-approval:
honestly, good discussion, OP
Obviously the situation isn't symmetric and you agree, but I think there's an important clarification that a lot of people need to be making between the ideal policy and the practical policy.
Ideally speaking, I 100% agree with your policy that nobody should be forced to raise a child they don't want. This requires a state that (as a state should) ensures the wellbeing of every one of its citizens, to the point that even if neither parent wanted to have the kid, they would still be guaranteed a complete quality of upbringing and life.
Practically, we obviously don't have that. At that point, you're having to play a game of priorities: there's a child here and the state isn't gonna care for it and the mother isn't capable of providing full care either. Your two options are to disregard the child's right to a quality upbringing so the father can have their right to not raise a child they don't want, or disregard the father's right to not raise a child who they don't want in exchange for upholding the right of the child to have a quality upbringing.
Any argument about "deadbeat dads" is the capitalist propaganda working, this is a behavior of poor education and poverty and lack of access to birth control. Blaming the individual is excusing the society. However I'm still, even without invoking the "deadbeat dad" argument, going to say that the child's right to a quality upbringing takes priority over the father's right to not raise a child they don't want. Three reasons:
This is the most Marxian response in this thread. using actual theory to show how this argument doesn’t hold up. Good job comrade.
I am the one true leftist :elmofire:
really tho thanks comrade, I took my time and I'm glad to hear whatever brainworms I may have don't have any jurisdiction on this topic
deleted by creator
Marxian is just the martian version of latinx
I have been laughing at this comment for a good while :xi-clap:
deleted by creator
Going second thing first, I definitely don't want to imply that a "father" is necessary to raise a good kid, just that two caregivers and income earners is almost always going to be better than one unless one of those caregivers is an abuser, but that's an entirely different discussion (although I don't want to downplay the fact that forced parenthood might be a facilitator of abuse).
As for the first thing, that is a huge concession to ask of capitalism, even from the cushiest of cushy social democracies. Even the very forefront of social democracy only grants a year or two of paid family leave, and in many of those cases it's being demonstrated that the belt is starting to tighten and those benefits are on the chopping block. You really need like 10+ years of a full living wage for two and healthcare/other benefits, and then another 8 or so years of a full living wage plus guaranteed half-time or less work for the only parent, and that's if the kid is happy to spend a lot of their time with things like sports or after-school activities where they are cared for. I don't see any capitalist society making it that far in concessions to the proletariat before the backswing of capital reclaiming their wealth and power takes over.
deleted by creator
again, thanks for bringing the thread here, I think you probably knew you were going to catch some heat and you did it anyways. I had to think for a while before I actually decided which way I stand and why which means it's a beneficial discussion to have as a community imo, I see a lot of people conceding certain points and changing their minds, you included, in a lot of threads here and that's good :stalin-approval:
deleted by creator