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]
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    4 years ago

    Sorry that this is such a struggle session for you. Clearly I haven't done the proper hermeneutics on engels and marx to be able to come to the conclusion that if someone doesn't want a child that they should be forced to pay support when it's not only concievable, but doable right now to have a system of universal support in place.

    • gay [any]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Marx lost so many kids, I'm sure he understood how vulnerable they are when they're little. And then would dunk on you for being so immature when it comes to sex

      • ofriceandruin [none/use name]
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        Marx also had financial support... from Engels. So is it hard to ask for societal support?

        Also, Marx wasn't the ideal father, and I imagine if you were living back then you'd be doing this weird shaming that you're doing now, ironically.

        • gay [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Marx was struggling HARD with money lmao

            • gay [any]
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 years ago

              You're acting like its comparable to abandoning a child with a parent who can't cover all the child's need? NGL, kinda cringe