Yeah, I’m not quite buying that, based on your stated preference for a hard line at the end of the first trimester. The effect of putting on arbitrary restrictions that serve no medical purpose is a well-established tactic for driving practitioners and clinics out of business (or just out of the state) which WILL affect availability of services whether you recognize it or not.
What do you feel should be the financial repercussions when a woman wants to keep the baby but the father does not? Should he be absolved of any financial responsibility?
So, women should take responsibility for their actions, but men shouldn’t have to? Is there a “Men’s Choice Movement” I should be aware of?
My personal opinion is that both the mother and the father “should take responsibility for their actions”, but if someone wants to simultaneously complain about misogyny and advocate that women should be absolved of all financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy, they ought to also allow men to be absolved of all financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. Anything else smells like misandry.
Personally, I think that the child support is one of the more inefficient and corrupt systems we have in place, so answering that within the context of current child support systems is a tough one.
If society provided the resources to ensure that a single mother can raise a family, then child support from the father is unnecessary. He can pay it along with the rest of us in taxes.
If he wants to have any part of the child’s life, OTOH, then financial contributions from him would be required.
Both mother and father ARE taking responsibility though. He has to pay his share to support the child regardless. She has to give up a few years of working and is physically/medically making all the sacrifices/risks. He should replace her wages, while she’s doing so, or else how can she pay her share of the child support? Why should she be the only one facing poverty because of an unwanted birth? If you incapacitated someone with your car you/your insurer would be on the hook for THEIR lost wages.
If the state wants to regulate that I have to have the baby, (because I didn’t know I was pregnant in time to act!), then they should pay the child support and all medical costs and then THEY should make the men pay. Any system that sees the women sacrifice her job, face medical expenses, left raising an infant alone, without income from her job AND have responsibility to get him to pay is ridiculous on its face.
Seconded.
This sounds like you are both simultaneously complaining about misogyny and advocating that women should be absolved of all financial responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy but men should not. Am I misunderstanding your position?
elbows stated quite clearly that a mother is responsible for “her share of the child support” for a baby, whether the baby was wanted or not. As, indeed, the law requires for both mothers and fathers alike.
The point of abortion rights is not to spare women all financial responsibility for an unwanted child, but rather to protect women from being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
Once a baby is born, both its mother and its father are legally on the hook for providing financial support for it, whether they want to or not. But that doesn’t mean that a woman is obligated to let an unwanted baby gestate inside her body.
Yes, you are. If you want the woman to carry any financial burden you can’t just deny her wages. He’s as responsible. She’s making the sacrifice to her body, time off her job, then if he wants her to shoulder half the burden her wages need to be guaranteed for that period.
If you set the situation up so she’s forced to give birth, AND you want her to be able to financially contribute she HAS to continue getting wages.
When the woman is also employed, during the divorce, and bringing in wages, the amount he pays is reduced, they split the cost. When she can’t work, he pays his share and THEY struggle with poverty because her wages no longer exists.
He replaces her wages till she can see that child into school. Don’t complain she’s not contributing when only he’s able to get a salary while she’s being forced to instead raise an infant. If he wants her back to work before that child is school aged he springs for half the daycare costs in ADDITION to child support, (rent, food, clothes, basics.)
BOTH parents should have equal risk of an unwanted pregnancy pushing them into poverty.
It sounds to me like they’re saying that women should get to retain control over their bodies because they’re not slaves. (Madness, madness I say!) This means that once she’s impregnated the woman really ought to gain full control of the situation in her body, due to the whole “not slaves” delusion.
And they’re also agreeing with you that people should be responsible for their choices. Once a man chooses to impregnate a woman, he’s on the hook for his action - but he ceases to have a lot of control over the events that follow. If the woman is allowed to get an abortion and chooses to get one, then the consequences to him are negligible - at worst paying for some of the medical costs. But if she chooses to keep the child, or is forced to keep the child, either way he’s on the hook for the child, and really should be held accountable.
And of course if the state is the one demanding that fetuses be brought to term, it only seems fair that the state ensure that their upkeep is paid for. Allowing them to bill the man for it after the fact is reasonable, but if they chose not to hold the man accountable they should be still be on the hook for the cash due to his involvement in causing the situation.
I’d say “obviously”, since nobody is calling for the mother to be absolved of all financial responsibility. Compensated for her lost earnings because of the pregnancy, if she wanted to terminate it but the father or the state prevented it, but absolved? I don’t know where you got that.
I was going to make a similar point to HDs, except I have actually always believed (I remember first thinking about this in my early teens) that “there oughtta be a law” where men can register with the government as having a default preference that their sexual partners abort any pregnancy that might occur from a sexual liaison they participated in. This would be a public registry any woman could check. If a man is on this registry, he cannot be liable for child support unless he was married to, or cohabitated with, the woman who gave birth to the baby.
Really? This seems backwards to me. I have always thought for instance that neutering male dogs is stupid. The only real way to control the population of unwanted puppies is spaying.
Okay, I guess I’ll just leave you to debate the straw man you have erected in my place. :rolleyes:
Can the women have a registry where if they sign up for it, if they get pregnant and decide not to abort then the man is required to take full charge for the baby once it’s born with the woman not having to pay child support at all?
If we’re signing up for services that allow you to abrogate responsibility for your actions unto perpetuity, and all.
I’m pretty sure that if all dogs were neutered that would be equally effective at controlling the population of puppies.
Or you could recognize the consequences of your position if put into law. A bright line at the end of the first trimester? Are you going to require the clinics to try to figure out exactly when that is? If the best estimate the doctor can make is that a pregnancy is in 2.5-3.5 month range, does the doctor have to ask the patient exactly when she conceived? What if the patient isn’t sure? What penalties did you have in mind, if any, if a doctor assumes incorrectly and aborts a 3.1-month fetus? How much monitoring, if any, were you planning to put in place to track and enforce this? If a clinic is determined to have aborted too many borderline cases, do you want it shut down?
Please give some thought to these issues.
There must be some anatomical feature that develops around that time that is detectable via ultrasound. Or better yet, a feature that disappears around that time. An ultrasound conducted no more than 24 hours prior to the procedure must show X, or the abortion is illegal.
Sounds great, as long as with the registry they also get a snip snip.
Will he be required to disclose this to anyone that he wants to sleep with, or is it their responsibility to ID him and cross reference that with the database?
One male dog can impregnate quite a number of females.
Besides, fixing is largely done for behavioral issues anyway. Most dog bites and attacks are perpetrated by intact males.
There must be? Or there is and you have identified it?
Well, I guess a feature restraint is at least more workable than a time restraint, though I am curious what kind of feature could be used as a benchmark. If the fetus is missing this feature (or never develops it), suggesting a genetic defect of some kind, fair game?
How about we use the measure hospitals routinely use to decide if someone is dead and can be disconnected from life support? Beating hearts are disconnected when there ceases to be measurable brain activity. If a beating heart isn’t enough to keep that person connected to life support, it makes no sense that it be the threshold for a fetus to be maintained.
In a fetus brain activity is measurable at 24 weeks. Without brain activity it is no more alive than a brain dead patient.