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.
Not gonna lie this sounds a lot like "well if you didn't wanna get shot by the police you shouldn't have done XYZ."
Not gonna lie this kinda sounds like a conservative argument to "make the man pay because they should be responsible because men are men, etc. etc."
lmao did all the MRAs come to chapo to brigade this post
The loudest commenter on this thread so far has zero comments prior to this thread. Take of that what you will.
yep lol
Yeah I reported their stuff, hopefully people realise what's up
it's a redditor website
unfortunate
No, it's not. Because we're not talking about extra-judicial violence. We're talking about two consenting adults having sex.
No. I've been very conscientious on not using gendered terms because I don't want to dilute the debate into a "men need to man up" argument. This is a discussion about two sexually fertile people coming together and weighing the risks of their union.
In this case we're talking about judicially sanctioned violence of the state imposing their will on someone who didn't consent to taking care of a child they didn't want. It also perpetuates a lot of stereotypes (e.g. black dead-beat father who's never there, etc.)
I get what you're trying to say but often these "adults" aren't any more mature than your average 15 year old. Scientific research is revealing that our brains don't really develop the ability to think in terms of long term consequences until at least 25 or so. Even if they are consenting adults (mentally mature and all of that good stuff), if one partner doesn't want a child then they don't want it. The messy reality is that most people don't consciously think of this stuff before they act. They're not like your wealthy suburban libs that "plan" everything. I don't think they should be strapped with this personal responsibility thing. I still think it's akin to blaming a poor person for using a plastic bag or plastic straw. It's some lib-shaming kinda shit.
I'm not talking about 15 year olds. As far as I know you can't sue a 15 year old for child support, but maybe someone on the thread can correct me.
Yes, and our culture has left the consequences of this ultimately to the person carrying the pregnancy. I'm saying we need to normalize the reality that both parties can create, and stop, fertilization from happening.
Arguing that a 25 year old doesn't understand the consequences of sex is incredibly patronizing.
I'm not lib-shaming. This is a socialist forum. All of us want all children to be born into a generous social safety net. OP is asking about a pregnancy now, in the present world.
I don't think so. How many chapos have done dumb shit at that age that they later regret? Like I said nobody is really mature until much later than the legal age in most countries: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-47622059 (lib source I know). Plus this kind of reasoning is what boomer-types like to use on young people (i.e. "you youngins ain't kids anymore, so just die in this neoliberal hellscape!).
I get that, but this kind of "present world" talk comes off as telling coal-miners to "learn coding" without offering anything material to help them transition to stable employment, etc. And if you're gonna talk about the "present world" and changing it, tactically speaking (in terms of persuading your average Joe who gets triggered at the idea of child support) it does come off as shaming.
your head is entirely within the confines of your rectal cavity, sir. we will need to perform surgery to remove it.
https://pasteboard.co/JDHZ3v3.jpg
Sexual intercourse is something that very specifically and directly leads to having children. Just about everyone is given sex education, it's not like a new helpless creature descended from you being in the world is some hazard occurrence.
You're arguing the case of a man who has had a child with someone but didn't want to. Overall, men are able to control decisions about reproduction far more than women. When a parent can just walk away from a child on the grounds that they "didn't want to have it", the other parent is saddled with the entire burden. And society is made up of other individuals. Who else should be responsible for raising your child but you?
I went through sex ed at age 11, and by age 15 I definitely was expected to know the consequences of my actions, of whatever type. An adult, even below the age of 25, is not oblivious like a 6-year-old is. You're simply concern-trolling.
Removed by mod
Take a step back.
You are literally comparing having a child to being shot in the back by police on fabricated evidence.
There is an injustice in usurious lending that makes debt slaves out of people. There is an injustice in police brutality. There is no injustice in a person having to maintain an entity they created.
There are exceptions when a person gets threatened or emotionally manipulated into having a child. It is extremely rare for this to happen to a man, and it is right for there to be recourse in that situation. As a male-bodied person, if I don't want to have babies with someone I am fully under my own power to use protection or to not have sex with them.
"Won't someone think of the poor men who are forced into having children and then forced into supporting those children" is exactly what you sound like. I honestly hope you aren't in any position to pass down either your genes or your shitty ideas.
Your distinctions are all a matter of framing. For example, instead of 'usurious lending' I could call it a "free choice" to take on that debt. We all learn about spending and saving money, even if on a basic level. But I'm not gonna fall into dumb libertarian shit like that. Everyone of course "knows" that sex leads to children, but do they really "know" what that entails? This applies to those that get pregnant and those that don't. What's with all this weird "personal responsibility" shit when it comes to this issue? It's strangely libertarian and Jordan Peterson-esque
Money is not an even playing field. Policing is not an even playing field. The median individual does not have power in money, or in law enforcement institutions.
Reproduction is much closer to an even playing field. Every child needs to be cared for, and every parent brings a child in to the world as-is, not through the convolutions of the law and definitely not P^ert children.
Are you really that obtuse that you can't tell the difference?
There are differences, but as I've stated in this thread multiple times, why is it that when in it comes to things like universal healthcare, universal college, etc. people are all on board and correctly disregard right wing austerity framing but when it comes to child support it morphs into weird zero-sum mindsets where people have to tighten their belts? If the partner doesn't want the kid, don't make them pay child support, have the state do it. Simple.
Having each individual putting the time and effort into supporting their own children is egalitarian as can be.
The reactionary model is for the majority of people to put time and effort into raising the children of the king. Or the nobles. Or the men who conveniently "don't want" the children they produced.
Even accepting that framing, it only applies if they wanted to have a kid in the first place.
The problem of deadbeat parents FAR outweighs the problem of parents who were tricked or coerced into becoming parents.
Presumably you are a part of society yourself. I'd be a lot more convinced if you had taken part in what you have stated "society" should do, i.e. adopting and raising a child.
The issue I have with statistical arguments like this is that it can be applied unjustly in other contexts. For example, trans people are a tiny fraction of the population, so why should we cater to them when it comes to bathrooms or health services? Same with gay, lesbian, bi, etc. Same with people with disabilities. "Normal" people FAR outnumber those other groups, so I don't really buy the whole statistical thing when it comes to things like rights (however you want to define those).
I don't understand this appeal to identity here. Should my opinion on climate change not be taken seriously because I'm not a climatologist? This comes off as some kind of republican talking point ("don't shit on capitalism if you haven't even started your own business, mr. lefty hipster")
Everyone should have their situation accounted for. No one should be forced into having kids they don't want, it's just that the idea of "you can walk away from parenting a child if you don't want to do it" (which is much, much closer to your argument than your misconstruing of mine and others') would be abused more than used justly. And it's not too hard to conceptualize a way to relieve parents who were coerced into being parents that isn't just "let anybody abandon ship".
If you were arguing in good faith, the analogy would be "don't shit on capitalism if you haven't had to sell your labor and/or pay compound interest on debt". Or "you shouldn't have an opinion on climate change if it doesn't affect you".
But you're not arguing in good faith.
It's easy to conceptualize a good way to do it. It would be something like "Child Support For All" just like medicare for all or anything like it. Your argument about people "abusing" a system like this is just as applicable to other universal support systems so I don't really buy it. Somehow we can all get on board with those things but when it comes to state supported child support, it all of a sudden becomes this incrementalist (at best) thing where the burden falls on individuals and where we can't do it because "the lazies will abuse it." This sounds like some kind of Milton Friedman framing or some "welfare queen" shit. It's not too far from that kind of reasoning to the kind that says "listen I would love to have a Nordic style social democracy, but they're just too ethnically homogeneous... meaning we can't have that here b/c of all the darkies who would abuse it at the expense of the european-lineage folk."
I don't know why you think I'm not arguing in good faith. I wasn't giving a bulletproof analogy, which is why I said it "comes off" as a republican talking point. Are we doing a debate club here or are we trying to have a genuine back and forth, dare I say dialectic?