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.

    • ofriceandruin [none/use name]
      5·
      4 years ago

      No. At no point did I ever actually endorse a policy.

      It's amazing that your detractors didn't seem to notice this, yet they keep repeating it as though you did. You'd think they were CNN or MSNBC.

    • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Society is not some all-potent incorporeal entity. It's made up of people. We know this because we live in it.

      If the parent as an individual is not undertaking X activity or cost for the benefit of a child, then another person at-large must undertake X activity or cost who doesn't deserve to have to do that.

      I mean, there are exceptions that prove the rule. If I were to hypnotize a man into sleeping with a woman and a child resulted, I would be responsible to some extent for that outcome.

      ITT people are defending the idea that people have agency in becoming parents, which is true for people with a womb maybe 90% of the time and true for people with testes >99% of the time.

      • ofriceandruin [none/use name]
        6·
        4 years ago

        If the parent as an individual is not undertaking X activity or cost for the benefit of a child, then another person at-large must undertake X activity or cost who doesn’t deserve to have to do that.

        I mean, there are exceptions that prove the rule. If I were to hypnotize a man into sleeping with a woman and a child resulted, I would be responsible to some extent for that outcome.

        Is that you, Jordan Peterson?

          • ofriceandruin [none/use name]
            5·
            4 years ago

            You just made Jordan Peterson talking points lolol. My points are no more MRA talking points than saying "hey maybe we should recognize that de-industrialization has hurt the white working class" is an alt-right talking point. This is some real lib-brain analysis tbh.