The World Beyond BetterMost > Women Today
Tale of a 19th-century abortion provider
Mikaela:
--- Quote from: milomorris on June 06, 2009, 08:15:23 pm ---Its actually pretty easy to spot. [ ] ...people out-and-out lie about their circumstances in some cases. Back in the 70s it was kind of a joke, but some women would borrow neighbor's kids when the social worker was coming for a home visit.
But what tells the tale of the welfare queen/king better than anyone else is the men and women themselves. You can't imagine the attitudes I grew up around in the ghetto back in the day. "I ain't workin' for da man as long as da government will pay me to stay home;" "If I get a job, I'll loose my food stamps;" on, and on, and on.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for clarifying. I guess I find it hard to wrap my mind around not wanting more from life than managing on welfare payments year after year. Because thought the money is certain to arrive, it can't be very much - so it's hardly a life of luxury I would suppose.
milomorris:
--- Quote from: Buffymon on June 07, 2009, 06:35:40 am --- The idea of a society where courts could force women to give birth to children...I doubt that´s what anyone wants. And again; how should this be enforced?
And the answer to your other questions is yes. As soon as a baby is born, the welfare of the child is the most important thing. I don´t think a man should be forced to see the child (because this could harm the child) but financially he must be there
--- End quote ---
I believe that if a man and a woman cannot agree on whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, the court should bind them over to a family planning agency (or someone) who can arbitrate. If the arbitration does not work, then the law should allow for a range of final judgment options for the court. Just like in custody cases, the fitness of the man or woman to be a parent should be a part of the debate.
But to answer the question of whether courts should have the ultimate power over the baby's fate, I do not think so. But I do believe that if a man wants the child and the woman does not, he should be awarded monetary compensation from the woman. I also believe that if the woman wants child, but the man does not, she should not be awarded any financial support.
Monika:
--- Quote from: Mikaela on June 07, 2009, 07:22:53 am ---
. Because thought the money is certain to arrive, it can't be very much - so it's hardly a life of luxury I would suppose.
--- End quote ---
No hardly. I think the number of people that enjoys that kind of life, is very small. But it´s often made out as they represent the majority.
Mikaela:
--- Quote from: milomorris on June 07, 2009, 07:23:35 am ---
I believe that if a man and a woman cannot agree on whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, the court should bind them over to a family planning agency (or someone) who can arbitrate. If the arbitration does not work, then the law should allow for a range of final judgment options for the court. Just like in custody cases, the fitness of the man or woman to be a parent should be a part of the debate.
--- End quote ---
Don't you think this would be impossible in practice, simply from a time window perspective? Each step of the official process would necessarily take its time, and the one who did not win through with his / her opinion would have to have rights to appeal the initial decision. In the meantime the clock would be ticking very quickly towards the end of the first trimester....
Monika:
--- Quote from: milomorris on June 07, 2009, 07:23:35 am ---
I believe that if a man and a woman cannot agree on whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, the court should bind them over to a family planning agency (or someone) who can arbitrate. If the arbitration does not work, then the law should allow for a range of final judgment options for the court. Just like in custody cases, the fitness of the man or woman to be a parent should be a part of the debate.
But to answer the question of whether courts should have the ultimate power over the baby's fate, I do not think so. But I do believe that if a man wants the child and the woman does not, he should be awarded monetary compensation from the woman. I also believe that if the woman wants child, but the man does not, she should not be awarded any financial support.
--- End quote ---
Your solution doesn´t strike me as realistic, MM. It would never work.
And regarding financial support, I put the good of the child first. Once the child is born, it has the right to be provided for.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version