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.
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?