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.
Removed by mod
This is one of those "feminism is for everyone" moments. I think it would be great for more men to raise their children, instead of sticking to old gender roles.
The person above is posting MRA talking points. An overwhelming majority of custody cases are settled in mediation and many parents share custody. If the non-custodial parent did not believe the other parent was fit they can fight it or at least get shared custody.
Oh I recognized the MRA talking point, I just enjoy responding to "but gender adjfdjfajfjajdf" with "yes."
Yes? That's my point. But courts are biased in thinking the mother is automatically the more fit parent, because of old gender roles.
An overwhelming majority of custody cases are settled in mediation, meaning there is no lingering disagreement over the decision. If a parent asks for shared custody they usually get it unless the other parent can prove lack of fitness, which is really fucking hard to prove these days. You're spreading nonsense.
Oof
How is it oof?
It sounds like the "women control my world and steal what's mine" reactionary talking point.
It's not. I'm most likely going to end up with a guy, and I'm definitely never having children. It has nothing to do with women "controlling me" or "stealing what's mine".
Woman are more oppressed in many ways yes, but not in this specific way. Existing gender roles lead to women being seen as the better caregiver than men. Don't we want to fight against gender roles?
Apparently they don't lol.... which is why I was worried that they were using thinly veiled gender essentialism when they were talking about things like the "sperm producing" partner carrying the burden and talking about that personal responsibility shit (i.e. "maybe you shouldn't have had sex if you didn't want a baby!"). Also talking about "biological differences" in similar ways to how race realists like to bring that shit up. Honestly the whole thing is super reactionary.