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]
      7·
      4 years ago

      I never said force people to get abortions. Here's what I'm saying:

      Why is it that the money printer goes brrrr when it comes to injecting trillions in a failing stock market, funding defense budgets, funding secret wars, funding wars at the drop of a hat, redistributing wealth upwards (through regressive tax cuts), etc..... BUT when it comes to the state paying for child support all of a sudden "we don't have enough money so we need to tighten our belts, the sperm producer MUST PAY and if they don't we're gonna shame them like libs, and everyone needs to put their head down, keep calm, and carry on."

      • PapaEmeritusIII [any]
        1·
        4 years ago

        Copying a bit from a comment I made elsewhere in the thread:

        Child support is actually the right of the child, not of the custodial parent. It’s not sex-specific either: women are as subject to this imposition as are men (it doesn’t matter that in practice there are fewer such cases, we’re talking legal principles here). Once a child is there, that child “claims” both parents’ support.

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

          Once a child is there, that child “claims” both parents’ support.

          I'd reframe this to "a child claims support from society." This takes the burden off of individuals and places it on society.

          • PapaEmeritusIII [any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Sure, but I was responding more to this part of your comment:

            the sperm producer MUST PAY

            Because actually, uterus-havers can also end up responsible for child support. This just doesn’t happen very often.

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

              I said that in response to many comments in this thread that seemed to rest their entire argument on the "sperm producer" paying, etc.