I'm not complaining about that expense. Obviously, those children need to be adopted and I think it probably helps everyone in the long run.
But, do you realize that birth mothers of children who are in foster care are not charged for their kids' welfare costs? We do let birth parents off the hook, and I think that's the right thing to do.
There's no guarantee that the woman can survive but there's a guarantee that the baby would die in an abortion. So would the opposite not be a crushing disrespect to infants as second class citizens (assuming they are constitutionally people)?
The situation is a catch 22 no doubt, it's why I've remained on the fence rather than believing purely in either side. It seems more of a moral and personal issue than anything else, something that, under our form of government would originally deal with the states and their powers.
Actually no.. and that's because the best determiner of whats best for the infant is the mother.. not the government.
Abortion is actually what the child could possibly wish would happen if they could articulate their wishes. Its very possible that the reason for having an abortion is to avoid the baby pain and suffering.
No the state would have the burden of proof that she intentionally murdered a person. Not sure where the **** you got the opposite notion from...
Most get flushed down the toilet without even knowing at the time.
But nothing would need to be reported because if such ridiculous laws were imposed on women, we just would never report a pregnancy. At least not until we decided if we wanted a kid or not.
I understand that sentiment, and I agree that the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for every deadbeat dad, but if we offered an opting-out period, a limited one, say just three months after they find out about the pregnancy, we'd avoid a lot of child abuse and reduce the risk of murder of the mother.
I don't think a lot of men would take that option, but if they did, it'd protect both the mother and the baby from angry repercussions.
.
Interesting.
I do agree that it cannot be assumed that the unborn would choose to be born, while the mother can definitely make her choice known.
They can. All men need to do is con, bribe or otherwise cajole the pregnant women into not declaring them the paternal parent. And, women actually have three options: keep it, give it up or terminate.You'd think -- and yet -- it happens. Males and females both face the same challenges when considering whether or not they are ready to raise a child. The best option, of course, is to advocate for good birth control practices, but if the unthinkable happens (and, it happens way too often), I think both the male and the female should be able to opt-out of being parents, physically and financially.
They can. All men need to do is con, bribe or otherwise cajole the pregnant women into not declaring them the paternal parent. And, women actually have three options: keep it, give it up or terminate.
Another scam guys try is "joint custody." Doing this allows them to avoid child support. And, the guys I know who do it, dump the kids on their parents during the days they have custody.
Well I'm sure they do that now. Plus there's always the Hail Mary.
And yet...they are still ending up saddled with payments...or custody.
We have no control what anyone does with custody...I dont see bringing that into the discussion and I'm sure alot of women make use of friends and relatives as well.
Of all the people I know who are single moms, only one is pulling in decent child support--$10K a month roughly. And, she did it because she was actually quite the sharp business woman in her choice of baby-daddies. All three of them are professionals with a lot to lose. So, they pay...a lot.
The rest got pregnant by deadbeats or the shared-custody gang. How many is that exactly? 1 out of 12, probably.
I have too much personal knowledge with the ones making bad choices overall, unfortunately.
You're right -- life isn't fair. It isn't fair for the higher percentage of women who are murdered when they're pregnant because the biological father didn't want to take responsibility.
Those women need not die. But, they will continue to die as long as we force males into accepting the consequences of the actions. If you don't believe me about higher rates of murder for women when they're pregnant, look it up. It's a "thing."
Exactly... the anti abortion crowd often goes as far as stating that the mother can decide that her child go without medical care that will save their life.. and opt for "faith healing".
Yes, it's a "thing," and a terrible one. But are you suggesting that pregnant women are killed because they refused to get an abortion? What's the connection? From Wiki [bolding mine]:
Murder of pregnant women is a type of homicide often resulting from domestic violence. Domestic violence—or intimate partner violence (IPV)—is suffered by many, and when analyzing cases in which victims came forward, majority of them are women. Many of these women fear harm not just to themselves but also to their unborn children. Recently, more focus has been placed on pregnancy-associated deaths due to violence. IPV may begin when the victim becomes pregnant. Research has shown that abuse while pregnant is a red flag for pregnancy-associated homicide.
The murder of pregnant women represents a relatively recently studied class of murder. Limited statistics are available as there is no reliable system in place yet to track such cases. Whether pregnancy is a causal factor is hard to determine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_pregnant_women
Every miscarriage would have to be investigated.
Every medically necessary abortion would need to be investigated. (Women in some other countries need to get govt permission. And are sometimes denied. And then they sometimes die.)
Of course, the results of that would be that women wouldnt bother consulting a Dr before deciding to keep a pregnancy or not. Pregnancy tests are accurate today. Women would just choose ahead of time which other options for an abortion they'd take....illegal, Canada, Mex, nice cruise ships just outside US waters...just like gambling ships. All paid for by the private donations that currently fund PP and other providers of abortions. And my guess is that they'd increase.
Please let us know when the taxpayers can 'opt out' of our (zero) responsibilities for their kids then.
Sounds about right.
I have been saying that for years.I forgot to mention the great leap in the black market for the "morning after pill"...that will become quite the pipeline.
Yeah...more big govt, more bloated bureaucracy, more $$ spent on kids that most people cant afford to begin with....
With regards to getting an abortion, DUH.
But if you're saying he has zero political say on whether or not abortions should be governed by state or federal or banned or not banned then you are absolutely 100% wrong.
Why should the govt be making medical decisions for women?
Non sequitur, scroll through the ensuing argument otherwise you aren't worth my time.
She's Canadian and in CA they have a law that respects a 'right to bodily sovereignty' that protects women.
She is also one of the people that can speak to personally to not assuming every unborn would demand the right to life.
I have alot of respect for her.
About time our Vice President steps up to the plate and defend Pro Life.
As for a man and a woman having sex isn't the issue and no cause for jail time unless it's same sex with two dudes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?