As mentioned before, the man is not the one who is carrying out the preagnancy. And if a man is together with a woman who doesn`t want children while he does, then he is simply in the wrong releationship. And I believe I can take deadbeats as an example considering that the number of singlemums is higher than the number of singlefathers.
I am saying that there is less incentive for an abortion or giving the child away when being a parent is less of a financial burden.
The abortion rates in my country went down after the conservative government increased childsupport to 184 € for 1 child, 368 € for 2 children, 558 € for 3 and 215 € for every extra child after 3.
As a result the abortion rates sunk dramaticaly, the majority off all abortions that happen here are when a disabled child is expected.
Fear of falling into poverty or losing your job, is the main reason why people chose not to be parents. So whatever potential course of events you can come up with, you will not bypass this fact when trying to find a way to lower the abortion rate.
You raise a different social question. The US government pays single women to have children and for many that is becoming a lifestyle. Is that a valid way to "prevent" abortions - paying poor women to have children for the government benefits of doing so?
Yesterday and the day before, we drove thru Harlem, NY. MILLIONS of people, poor people mostly African-American, living in 8 to 12 story tenement buildings, each with their little cubic apartment - with such tenements jammed together going in every direction for miles. An area so dangerous it was the only area of greater NYC there were NOT people milling around on the street nor the endless small businesses at street level.
Paying women to have children for the purpose of the money, housing assistance, food stamps etc that come with each child is a social disaster, for which in mostly a literally way the government is financing massive warehousing of humans districts. So in a sense it is true that the more the government will pay single women to have otherwise unwanted children, the more unwanted children that won't be aborted.
What is the limit? There would be 50,000,000 more unwanted children, mostly born into poverty and government dependency, if abortions were illegal AND the government paying all costs of those children - for many literally for the rest of their life as they go on government dependency as adults. A few months ago, I posted the calculation of how much those 50,000,000 more could cost the government - and it is TRILLIONS of dollars a year - and would increase exponentially with each generation.
So how many unwanted children except for the government aid is the goal? 100,000,000? 300,000,000? 1 Trillion more?
Every country that has exploding populations of people born into poverty are hellish countries of extreme poverty, little to no civil rights, dictatorial governments and for which few people have even a hope for a decent future.
No one really discusses what reality would be without abortions in real terms. They just say "adoptions" as if that would solve anything.
