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.
Hmmm this is a very good take, I like it. My one concern is on the safety of abortions. Modern science has made abortion procedures safer than carrying a child to term. In that case, shouldn't a perfectly ran society encourage abortions rather than childbirth if the child is unnecessary?
Uhh? Are there some people who are nececessary and others who are unnecessary? Necessary for what, according to whom?
There are many things that people do that have safer alternatives. You're more likely to die climbing a mountain than you are lounging around watching TV. Should a perfectly run society encourage people to do the latter rather than the former?
This is some disgusting shit to say. No. This is eugenics, white supremacy and misogyny, fuck off. A perfectly ran society should encourage bodily autonomy and put no restrictions on, and offer support to, carrying a pregnancy to term or having an abortion.
I really think you're putting words in my mouth here, I wasn't even saying that was the right solution, I was just asking a question.
I don't think any society, let alone a perfect one, should be able to control bodily autonomy. All I was asserting is that a society would encourage family planning education and birth control, and to promote abortions as a safe alternative for unsure mothers.
Maybe you should reevaluate the way you are phrasing things and ask yourself if you seriously understand what "family planning education".
No one should promote anything. All possibilities should be presented with as little bias as possible and be offered support for any decision they might make.
Do you think people don't promote abortions as safe alternatives for disabled people? And for poor people? Do you think we haven't seen how that works out?
That's why I said in a perfect society. All of this is meant to be purely speculatory, not legislation that we should be implementing tomorrow.
It shouldn't happen in a perfect society because we know how disgusting and damaging this is.