Abortion and child support

[Henrin]

It is funny, way back it all was about women "tricking" men into fatherhood. "She told me she was on birth control".

Now, when recommendations indicate BOTH partners wear protection - if not for the sake of unintended pregnancy, but for the prevention of HIV......now there is whining about condoms. Seriously, of all times in our nation to come out AGAINST condoms....it is the apparently more important for many man to feel a bit more pleasure than to prevent pregnancy and potentially deadly disease. I mean....I never met a man that did not seem totally satisfied while wearing a condom.

You do realize that a condom actually changes how the penis functions, right? Hell, it makes several functions of the penis pretty much pointless.

Oh and yes, condoms do decrease pleasure. I'm kind of interested why you think men should embrace less pleasure from sex with open arms.

I find it interesting how no one can figure out how to argue that men are inherently bond to something in which they need third party permission to have access to.

It's like saying I'm responsible for the garden I helped my neighbor to plant even if I need her permission to do anything towards it.

 

[Henrin]

Also, the pair bonding stuff only gives the man motivation to stay. I honestly can't see how that can be used towards government imposed child support.

 

[Celebrity]

(part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #185)


SHORT-TERM THINKING IS A HUGE PROBLEM OF MANY ABORTION OPPONENTS. How many parents of married couples want grandchildren? Truly Successful Reproduction means not only directly passing your genes on, but also helping ensure they continue to get passed on. If a childless 20-year-old kills self in an auto wreck, the parents of that young adult will have in-essence wasted all their efforts to pass genes on through that particular offspring. They did not truly succeed at earning reproduction.

The concept of ownership does not apply after birth. Consider Central Park in New York City. Think about how much it might be worth in tax revenue to the city if skyscrapers filled it. The people of the city have earned that park by constantly insisting it not be developed in that way --and yet no individual owns the park. All through Nature, successfully passing one's genes on, across the long term, is a privilege that must be earned. And ownership has nothing to do with it.


SEE ABOVE. If you don't put effort into accomplishing something, on what basis can you claim a right to accomplish it? Ben Franklin once told someone about the Constitutional right to pursue happiness. Earning something always requires effort of some sort. Sometimes the effort can be translated as "money", but not always.

Oh I see now, anyone who disagrees with your manner of thinking has clearly failed to "earn" your respect. Got it. Well, slaves do not earn the respect of their masters. They labor for their masters direct compensation. Non-reproduction is not a waste of anything but physical biological resources, over which you may not exert any control unless they have been given to you inside of your body, or in other words, your personal biological composition.

FALSE. If you don't clearly state something, it IS nonsensical blather.

Well, I can't help you with reading comprehension, so your "nonsensical" is purely subjective of my "blather." That's your opinion, not a logical truth or fallacy.

A SIMPLIFICATION. Consider inheritances, for example. But often true enough.

In that case, I do not disagree with you that "paired bondage" has it's merits. I think it is of value to look at how relationships are economized, politically speaking. I also don't think that tyrants should be allowed to strip you or I from our individual autonomy on the basis of sexism or biology. People cannot be owned, although inheritances can be owned, measured and divided.

NOT LIKELY TO EVER BE ANY SUCH THING. Remember the Octomom?

I believe the Octomom and all women who are not rape victims reproduce autonomously.

SHE IS STILL EXPECTED TO PAY FOR WHAT SHE WANTS. It occurs to me that "sperm banks" have not previously been mentioned in our discussion. They exist for those women so desperate to have children that they don't care who the fathers are (except for being healthy). And men have not been expected to support THOSE offspring; the onus is entirely on those desperate women (who are expected to show they can support their children without the help of the biological fathers).

Paying for surrogacy, or biological materials is not the same as autonomous reproduction. Surrogates (and sperm donors) reproduce autonomously, although perhaps selflessly. No one should force a surrogate mother to be pregnant or give birth.

FALSE, mostly because in today's overpopulated world, no society needs to help augment families.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Female biological resources are compelled by male biological resources within the context of impregnation to produce a zygote, embryo or fetus.

Child support is only needed if abortion (or miscarriage) doesn't happen. That can include supporting the unborn human in the womb --the woman needs a healthy diet for a healthy pregnancy, right?

Yes, and a need does not imply any level of contribution. Just as a need to support a pregnant woman in society does not imply any increased financial input from the state, it won't imply any increased financial input from men, even if it should be the case that "paired bonds" of pregnant women should have an increased salary and paternity leave.

 

[Henrin]

It is funny, way back it all was about women "tricking" men into fatherhood. "She told me she was on birth control".

Now, when recommendations indicate BOTH partners wear protection - if not for the sake of unintended pregnancy, but for the prevention of HIV......now there is whining about condoms. Seriously, of all times in our nation to come out AGAINST condoms....it is the apparently more important for many man to feel a bit more pleasure than to prevent pregnancy and potentially deadly disease. I mean....I never met a man that did not seem totally satisfied while wearing a condom.

And didn't you say that your husband actually didn't want to wear a condom until you basically told him that you wouldn't have sex with him if he didn't?

 

[Celebrity]

It is funny, way back it all was about women "tricking" men into fatherhood. "She told me she was on birth control".

Now, when recommendations indicate BOTH partners wear protection - if not for the sake of unintended pregnancy, but for the prevention of HIV......now there is whining about condoms. Seriously, of all times in our nation to come out AGAINST condoms....it is the apparently more important for many man to feel a bit more pleasure than to prevent pregnancy and potentially deadly disease. I mean....I never met a man that did not seem totally satisfied while wearing a condom.

I'm not whining about condoms. Why are you whining about condoms?

 

[year2late]

I'm not whining about condoms. Why are you whining about condoms?

Well, then if men do not wish to be responsible for a child....it is the very least he could do.

Solved.:roll:

 

[FutureIncoming]

Is that a strategy for reproduction or a strategy for survival?

REPRODUCTION. The basic idea is, the more females a male impregnates, the better the chances that some offspring will survive without his help, even if many die. This is a variant of "R strategy" reproduction. Do you know about R-strategy and K-strategy?

I think... you are complaining that your "pair bondage" doesn't appear to work in a free society.

EVOLUTION WORKS SLOWLY. And there are always genetic/mutant variants on any theme. Humans have been evolving for only few million years; marine mammals have been evolving for tens of millions of years. I wasn't in the least complaining; I was simply describing Facts, as accurately as I could. Human pair-bonding exists, and is often quite effective (only a relatively small percentage of men practice the impregnate-her-and-run strategy). It is the "majority" situation by far; most men are quite willing to support their offspring. And human societies simply reflect that majority, in insisting all men should support their offspring.

By what is available, do you mean canvassing donations or obligating payment, not at the discretion of the payer, with a penalty upon non-payment under Title 18 Chapter 11A, Section 228 of the US Code?

THEY CAN'T PAY QUANTITIES OF MONEY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE... and that's what I was talking about, in "attempts to work with what is available".

 

[FutureIncoming]

Also, the pair bonding stuff only gives the man motivation to stay. I honestly can't see how that can be used towards government imposed child support.

IT NEVER HAS; human cultures have been insisting men pay child support for far longer than has existed knowledge about pair bonds. I've merely been trying to explain how the existence of pair bonds and their Natural consequences, has led cultures to observe how much greater the chances are, of offspring surviving with the help of male parents, and turning that observation into a requirement that men support their offspring.

 

[Celebrity]

(part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #185)


MOSTLY FALSE, because you are going against Nature, not working with Nature.

This is absolutely untrue. It is not going against nature to claim autonomous social function. It is perfectly natural for a sexually active man to not be prepared to be a biological father, in the same way that women who are sexually active are sometimes not prepared to be biological mothers. Anything more or less equal than that should be labelled "sexist."

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! Who do you suppose usually pays for abortions of unwanted offspring? Those women earn the right to not have those offspring!

Perhaps women should be granted "abortion support," then. What do you think of the idea? Do men earn the right to not have those offspring when women make autonomous decisions? No, men do not. Your argument is logically inconsistent, is it not?

AND YET HUMAN SOCIETIES ARE MOSTLY CONSISTENT WITH NATURE. Perhaps you should look up "fetal resorption", because Nature does include ways of directly killing unborn offspring that cannot be supported.

I'm not quite sure how resorption, or kangaroos relate to our discussion. But thanks for pointing out how resorption of a non-implanted fetus can biologically occur, like a miscarriage. Where are you going with this line of thinking?

I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT. Childless couples (about 1 in 7) have mostly been recipients of sympathy for many centuries. Often they have been allowed to adopt, but so far as I know, no society forces them to raise children not their own.

And yet childless men and women (more so men than women) are forced to support (raise) children who are not in their families, with whom no social contact exists, on penalty of fine and imprisonment under Title 18 Chapter 11A, Section 228 of the US Code.

REALLY? WHY, if sperm banks are available? Or are you unwittingly admitting that because the man can provide resources, that makes it "best"?

It seems quite obvious that the use of surrogacy or donorship translates convincing into a financial matter. What is your point?

HISTORICALLY, LOTS OF SEX. With pair-bond formation as a frequent consequence....

I thought that you had stated that so-called "pair-bond" formation was both necessary and sufficient for sex. Are you making a tacit concession about a case where no such bond exists?

THEY CAN GET VASECTOMIES, if they want to be nearly certain they won't be having offspring they don't want. And the technology for that appears to be improving.

Thanks for pointing that out. Women can have their eggs removed, men can use condoms, women can use condoms, etc. It's all contraception, but there's no need to fixate on male genitalia.

??? DID YOU MIS-STATE THAT? I already offered two reasons why a man should not be exempt from paying for his offspring (Nature, and Stupidity), and you are offering a third? When what I wanted you to provide was a reason why a man should be exempted, instead. If you accidentally included the word "not" in the above quote, then I would have to point out that sexism is basically Stupid Hypocrisy (there is no such thing as "intelligent hypocrisy"), and so that would automatically invalidate sexism as a reason to exempt men from paying for their offspring.

Did you describe your own argument as hypocritical when you described "stupidity" as sexism? Perhaps you did not realize what you were saying.

FALSE. Mostly I'm explaining why the current situation, expecting men to pay child support, is valid.

It is not natural, or valid to be sexist in a free society where individuals are given equal treatment. We do not need to put pregnant women on a pedestal, they simply need proper prenatal care. That's it. We do not need to put mothers on a pedestal, mothers and fathers should be treated equally.

IT IS THE RIGHT THING, because there are valid reasons why men should pay for their offspring.

It is not the right thing in every case. There are cases in which men should not pay for their offspring. There may be valid reasons why men should pay, but there is no valid reason for why men ought to be forced to do so by the state.

 

[Henrin]

IT NEVER HAS; human cultures have been insisting men pay child support for far longer than has existed knowledge about pair bonds. I've merely been trying to explain how the existence of pair bonds and their Natural consequences, has led cultures to observe how much greater the chances are, of offspring surviving with the help of male parents, and turning that observation into a requirement that men support their offspring.

By the time the child support system is called on the man is already gone and whatever benefits could come about from paid bonding are not in play. Child support just adds resources to the equation. The resources coming the father has no effect on the benefits those resources will have to the child.

 

[Celebrity]

NOT REALLY, because that definition can easily be interpreted as showing how marriage extends an existing family (of the parents with the married children). I asked for data about lone couples referring to themselves as families.

No, it is a definition which should be interpreted as showing how immediate family members exist by their relationship to one another.

AND CHILDREN ARE ASSOCIATED WITH DEDUCTIONS on those same tax returns. The intent is for the two to balance, but it doesn't work well, if only because cost-of-living can be so different in different parts of the country.

SEE ABOVE. Expenses are taken into account (even if done poorly).

So your justification for payment is the deduction of taxable income? Nice, either way it reduces the burden on parents. It's clear that both are resources provided by tax code to families including custodial parents who file taxes.

THAT MOSTLY REFLECTS THE GENERAL INEQUITY IN PAY. It is well known that women tend to be paid less than men, for equal work. It also reflects the very-common situation in which women are child-raisers far more often than men.

It is sexist to not allow men to raise children on principle, and it is a fallacy to justify inequity with further inequity. Seems like you're focused on the inequity. I am not advocating for inequity, I am advocating for equal treatment of men and women and equal reproductive rights.

FALSE. If children did not exist (imagine a world in which every person began to exist in the same way the Biblical Adam supposedly began to exist), there would be no child-support laws. DUH!!!

In no way does this refute my claim. In fact, it does not even remotely address my claim that child support orders are a financial matter for parents, not children.

THE MONEY IS ALLOCATED FOR A PURPOSE. See above; if children did not exist....

The money is disbursed to the custodial parents and spent at the discretion of custodial parents.

 

[Celebrity]

Well, then if men do not wish to be responsible for a child....it is the very least he could do.

Solved.:roll:

It is not the responsibility of men alone to use contraception.

That does not remotely solve the fact that women are sanctioned by the state to take from men resources, by force, using their biological function. Men are not sanctioned by the state to force women to engage in biological reproduction with the male biological function, which occurs during sex. In other words, if men want to be responsible for a child, and women don't, women are still protected under the law. Condoms are not infallible and your solution is an ounce of prevention when a pound of the cure is necessary to treat a disease that is the coercion of men under family law.

 

[Casper]

It is funny, way back it all was about women "tricking" men into fatherhood. "She told me she was on birth control".

Now, when recommendations indicate BOTH partners wear protection - if not for the sake of unintended pregnancy, but for the prevention of HIV......now there is whining about condoms. Seriously, of all times in our nation to come out AGAINST condoms....it is the apparently more important for many man to feel a bit more pleasure than to prevent pregnancy and potentially deadly disease. I mean....I never met a man that did not seem totally satisfied while wearing a condom.

Correct. If I were a woman and the guy did not want to wear one he would not be going any further, his selfishness is enough to know he is not a good match.

 

[Henrin]

Correct. If I were a woman and the guy did not want to wear one he would not be going any further, his selfishness is enough to know he is not a good match.

The man wanting his penis to function as it is intended during sex shouldn't be considered selfish.

 

[Casper]

The man wanting his penis to function as it is intended during sex shouldn't be considered selfish.

A condom does not change the function of their penis. Have you ever used one. A smart woman would not have sex without the man using one and a man dumb enough to not use one is just looking to catch one disease or another and/or pay a lot of child support. Choices have consequences.

 

[Henrin]

A condom does not change the function of their penis. Have you ever used one. A smart woman would not have sex without the man using one and a man dumb enough to not use one is just looking to catch one disease or another and/or pay a lot of child support. Choices have consequences.

Actually it does. Do you know the foreskin does during sex? Do you realize that the condom stops the man from assisting in lubrication during sex?

 

[FutureIncoming]

(part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #203)

Oh I see now, anyone who disagrees with your manner of thinking has clearly failed to "earn" your respect.

FALSE. Many who disagree with me are using invalid data and/or incomplete data and/or Bad Logic. I can fully respect those who use complete/valid data and Good Logic. They do exist. But none of them appear to be abortion opponents, and so I seldom encounter them in the Overall Abortion Debate.

Non-reproduction is not a waste of anything but physical biological resources, over which you may not exert any control unless they have been given to you inside of your body, or in other words, your personal biological composition.

FALSE, since young humans require extraordinary care, beyond resources provided by one's body. THEY WILL DIE if they don't receive that care, which even today can include protection from predators.

Well, I can't help you with reading comprehension, so your "nonsensical" is purely subjective of my "blather." That's your opinion, not a logical truth or fallacy.

NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR. I don't see you making any attempt to explain how what you originally wrote was different from nonsensical blather.

Political capital which allows you to reproduce in a family within a society should be protected by the rules of that society.

CARE TO TRY AGAIN, to phrase that as an intelligible communication?

In that case, I do not disagree with you that "paired bondage" has it's merits.

OK

I think it is of value to look at how relationships are economized, politically speaking.

THEY DO THAT ALREADY. And mandatory child support is one of the consequences.

I also don't think that tyrants should be allowed to strip you or I from our individual autonomy on the basis of sexism or biology.

OUR AUTONOMY STILL HAS LIMITS. For example, there is the classic "your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

People cannot be owned, although inheritances can be owned, measured and divided.

TRUE. Per Existing Law, unborn humans don't count as persons, and thus can be owned and treated (and discarded) like other properties. Once born, however, they are legally persons with rights. NOT with very much autonomy, however. They have to learn how to handle that responsibly! And who is supposed to teach them that...?

I believe the Octomom and all women who are not rape victims reproduce autonomously.

The Octomom case was a bit unusual. She was on Welfare with six kids before she got pregnant with eight more. She was basically telling the world, "I'm going to have all the kids I want, and YOU are going to pay for them!" Lots of folks were upset by that (some have indicated that if ever there was a reason to have mandatory abortions, she provided it). I find it very hypocritical of "conservative" politicos who not only insist pregnant women must give birth to children the women neither want nor can afford to raise, those politicos also want Welfare eliminated (because they don't want to pay for the births/children that others want, like the Octomom). How are those unwanted/impoverished children going to avoid dying after birth? Why isn't it simpler to allow abortions of the unwanted, when vastly fewer biological resources will have been wasted? (Compare size of typical 12-week aborted fetus to a newborn.)

 

[FutureIncoming]

(part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #203)

Paying for surrogacy, or biological materials is not the same as autonomous reproduction. Surrogates (and sperm donors) reproduce autonomously,

INACCURATE. Modern technology is required, usually also with experts handling that technology.

although perhaps selflessly. No one should force a surrogate mother to be pregnant or give birth.

TRUE

Perhaps you misunderstood me. Female biological resources are compelled by male biological resources within the context of impregnation to produce a zygote,

FALSE.

embryo or fetus.

FALSE. The sex act does not FORCE the consequences. Sperm and ova and zygotes and morulas and blastocysts and embryos and fetuses are all entities that act independently of the sex-participants. When a wanted pregnancy fails to happen (or miscarries), it is usually the fault of one of those independently-acting entities, not the sex participants. Therefore the sex participants should not be assigned all the blame when an unwanted pregnancy happens.

Yes, and a need does not imply any level of contribution.

TELL THAT TO ABORTION OPPONENTS, who think every unborn human needs to get born, and a woman must be enslaved as a life-support system to accomplish it, whenever she doesn't want to stay pregnant.

Just as a need to support a pregnant woman in society does not imply any increased financial input from the state,

NOT EVEN THE STATE CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Remember, in the Roe v Wade Decision, the Supreme Court indicated that in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, the State can have a significant interest in the outcome of a pregnancy. Logically,, if the State wants a birth to happen, it ought to be willing to put its money where its mouth is.

it won't imply any increased financial input from men,

PAIR BONDING EXISTS TO DEAL WITH THAT. It remains a Fact that young humans need extraordinary care, compared to other young mammals. If they don't get it, they die.

even if it should be the case that "paired bonds" of pregnant women should have an increased salary and paternity leave.

You are implying something about pair bonds that is not true. If the bond is strong, then a man receiving extra benefits will be using them on supporting his offspring.

 

[FutureIncoming]

By the time the child support system is called on the man is already gone and whatever benefits could come about from paid bonding are not in play.

SO? I know of cases where the State provides assistance for children, and when the father is finally tracked down and made to pay, the State tries to recoup the money from the father.

Child support just adds resources to the equation. The resources coming the father has no effect on the benefits those resources will have to the child.

EVIDENCE, PLEASE. You appear to be assuming none of the money will be spent on helping the child.

 

[Henrin]

SO? I know of cases where the State provides assistance for children, and when the father is finally tracked down and made to pay, the State tries to recoup the money from the father.

Ok? Pair Bonding would still not be in play at that point.

EVIDENCE, PLEASE. You appear to be assuming none of the money will be spent on helping the child.

No real reason. Money is money. If the money comes from the father, Jim down the road, Jennifer the best friend, or some other source it will provide the same benefits to the child if spent.

 

[year2late]

It is not the responsibility of men alone to use contraception.

That does not remotely solve the fact that women are sanctioned by the state to take from men resources, by force, using their biological function. Men are not sanctioned by the state to force women to engage in biological reproduction with the male biological function, which occurs during sex. In other words, if men want to be responsible for a child, and women don't, women are still protected under the law. Condoms are not infallible and your solution is an ounce of prevention when a pound of the cure is necessary to treat a disease that is the coercion of men under family law.

Notice how in about 200 posts I have said that I believe both parties should use birth control??

Logically speaking, the party that does not use birth control seems less concerned about potential need to support a baby.

 

[year2late]

The man wanting his penis to function as it is intended during sex shouldn't be considered selfish.

A penis cannot function as intended in a condom. You know it is a covering and not grout, right?:shock:

My point of course is, a man can make a decision between a slightly different sexual experience and possible fatherhood. His choice. No coercion into sexual activity.

 

[Henrin]

A penis cannot function as intended in a condom. You know it is a covering and not grout, right?:shock:

Yes, normally during intercourse the foreskin slides up and down the shaft of the penis stimulating the glans and the receptors of the foreskin itself. Not only that but normally the foreskin reduces friction and chafing during intercourse, aids penetration, and increases pleasure for both partners. A condom very much does disable every last one of these benefits and functions of the foreskin. Second, it actually does make male lubrication pretty much moot.

 

[Henrin]

A penis cannot function as intended in a condom. You know it is a covering and not grout, right?:shock:

My point of course is, a man can make a decision between a slightly different sexual experience and possible fatherhood. His choice. No coercion into sexual activity.

So you're saying men are not supposed to enjoy sex as their body intends. Sorry, but it seems awfully silly to suggest men are not to have sex and enjoy in full the pleasure it provides.

 

[FutureIncoming]

(part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #209)

This is absolutely untrue.

WRONG; pair bonds are very Natural, right along with the consequences of men helping women to raise offspring. Human societies have simply codified that into certain laws requiring child-support from biological parents.

It is not going against nature to claim autonomous social function.

DEFINE "social function". Ever heard the phrase "It takes a village to raise a child"? Guess what! Women aren't the only inhabitants of a village!

It is perfectly natural for a sexually active man to not be prepared to be a biological father, in the same way that women who are sexually active are sometimes not prepared to be biological mothers.

AGREED. And when I say "stupidity has a price", I'm talking about the women who are prepared, and men who are too stupid to at least ask the women what they would do about unexpected pregnancies.

ALSO, what you wrote does not apply to men who deliberately practice the "impregnate her and run" strategy.

ALSO, what you wrote can imply a woman might have no knowledge about the abilities of a man to help support a child. If a woman seeks to trap a man with a pregnancy, why would she choose an unprepared man?

SO, your argument doesn't add up, once all the relevant factors are considered.

Anything more or less equal than that should be labelled "sexist."

OK

Perhaps women should be granted "abortion support," then. What do you think of the idea?

THERE ARE PROPONENTS ALREADY OUT THERE, for that idea. It is normal for socialism-type countries, like Sweden, for women to have access to abortion as a part of ordinary/free medical care. I don't object because the world IS overpopulated.

Do men earn the right to not have those offspring when women make autonomous decisions? No, men do not.

STUPIDITY HAS A PRICE. It occurs to me that we've previously not mentioned the possibility of a man paying a woman to get an abortion --not just the cost of the abortion, but paying her to do it. I wonder what any women reading this might say about that, how much might a woman want to be paid, to abort a pregnancy the man doesn't want....

Your argument is logically inconsistent, is it not?

MY ARGUMENT IS FINE, because I'm taking more factors into account than you. It is still a Fact that the man's genes would be getting passed on if a child is born. It is still a Fact that young humans need lots of support to survive. You seem to think the woman and the State should be the only providers --but it is still a Fact that the world is overpopulated. Some nations are considering taxing children, not giving parents tax deductions for them...so how much longer do you think States will continue to provide support for children?

I'm not quite sure how resorption, or kangaroos relate to our discussion. But thanks for pointing out how resorption of a non-implanted fetus can biologically occur, like a miscarriage. Where are you going with this line of thinking?

WHEN A WOMAN GETS AN ABORTION BECAUSE HER ENVIRONMENT WON'T LET HER SUPPORT OFFSPRING, it is exactly as Natural as a kangaroo resorbing a fetus when the environment is too barren for her to support offspring.

And yet childless men and women (more so men than women) are forced to support (raise) children who are not in their families, with whom no social contact exists, on penalty of fine and imprisonment under Title 18 Chapter 11A, Section 228 of the US Code.

RELEVANT QUOTE: "Blood is thicker than water." The Law is referring to a biological relation. I note your response is to something I wrote about a childless couple (although perhaps I should have been more complete in that description --I meant, neither adult has any offspring!) A living human child contains genes of two parents, and will die without support. Add the concept of "right to life", and that support must be provided by someone(s).

It seems quite obvious that the use of surrogacy or donorship translates convincing into a financial matter. What is your point?

YOU ORIGINALLY WROTE:

The best way for a woman to reproduce is to get pregnant, the best way to do that is to convince a man to do so

YOU DID NOT EXPLAIN why getting a man involved was "the best way" for the woman --unless you were tacitly implying something about the man-as-provider.