Is feminism becoming an obsolete movement?

[exploited]

If a woman intentionally deceives a man about her birth control measures, I do not think the man should have any responsibility for the child, assuming there is some sort of proof of the accusation of deception. Anyways...

From a utilitarian perspective, the justification of child support is simple. Class systems make it so a parent's economic value is the main determinant of the child's present and future economic value, as the statistics show.

A single-parent home can raise a fine child, there is no doubt - but you are essentially shifting the economic burden of the child from the parents, onto the child. What college they attend, what sports they can play, what teachers and health care they can have, and consequently their entire lives... that all depends on their parents, one of whom will no longer have any financial responsibility on the grounds that the other could have had an abortion.

From a logistical perspective, abolishing child support on the grounds that the man didn't want the child is difficult as hell. If a man does want the child, then decides eight months in that he doesn't, does he have any responsibility then? How about after six months of pregnancy? How about after three months? When does a mans financial culpability for a child begin, if not conception? If he wants an abortion, should he have to pay for half? If he doesn't, should he still have to pay?

The essential truth is that child support is the only way to make freedom of choice possible, for man or woman. If a woman wants a child, has it, then takes off, she should pay child support. If she didn't want it but had it anyway, then takes off, she should still pay. Men should face the same standards. That is fair.

Our biology does not allow true equality. Women must be in control of the fetus, and both men and women must pay for their child. Any other perspective requires obscene laws, and causes far more harm than it prevents.

That which causes the least harm is the fairest.

[Bauce]

[Leviathan]

What? Bro poor kids get free everything until they are out of college pretty much. I'm not talking luxuries or anything but the state will educate and feed them until 18 if the parents are f**k ups. Not really much else we can do short of taking the kid from the parents or handing the parents money they won't spend on the kid anyway.

[Bauce]

I think there's a pretty big difference between the social services that exist for poor kids and the type of lifestyle a kid can have from child support if the father makes a decent living. But that gets into a whole other discussion about poverty that isn't the topic.

[Leviathan]

[Bauce]

Yeah duh. But if both parents are poor, you're gonna be poor. If your mom is poor but the guy who knocked her up has money now we need to make sure you have a middle class lifestyle.

[Leviathan]

[exploited]

They don't get free everything. Many kids don't even have enough to eat. Many are born into crazy levels of poverty, from which it is virtually impossible to escape unless they are truly special (and by definition, rare). They get worse food, less education, less opportunities, and worst of all, this actually alters their brain development permanently.

Your privilege is showing, Saz.

[Leviathan]

[Bauce]

Forget I brought it up guys. This is going to derail the discussion. I shouldn't have gone there.