Tale of a 19th-century abortion provider

[Mikaela]

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.

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]

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

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]

. 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. 

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

[milomorris]

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....

Court doesn't always take a long time. Look how swiftly children are whisked into foster care by courts.

[milomorris]

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.

True. But that support must come from the parent who chooses not to abort the child. And there's always state assistance.

[delalluvia]

True. But that support must come from the parent who chooses not to abort the child. And there's always state assistance.

But that already exists and you see how things are for the children.

I'm torn about someone not wanting a child but being forced for 18 years to pay for the upkeep of a child he didn't want - and it will always be a he - let's put aside the issue of women being forced to have children they don't want.  There are already adoption agencies for women who want to give up their children and not support them.

Men don't have this option.

But it seems to me that a very important decision for men - whether they want a child or not and to support them for 18 years - is left up to them when they have the least brains to consider it.  They're horny or in love and want to shag now - they don't want to wait until marriage, they don't want to wait until they're secure in their careers and now they've got a partner who - understandably - may or may not want children,  may or may not believe in choice, may or may not change her mind no matter what she originally thought and said - which she's perfectly entitled to do.

This kind of partner does not bode well for a man who is too overrun with hormones to think clearly.

You'd think he'd want the women to be on the pill AND to use a condom slathered in non-oxyl 9 everytime AND have the woman use anti-spermicide suppositories - just to make sure.

But too often the man wants next to nothing done.  Or he leaves all the birth control to his partner.

So, later, if an accident happens and the man decides he wants nothing to do with a child, if he didn't take all the precautions possible that he could have to prevent a child it's hard to completely absolve him of any responsibility for the child - financial or otherwise - if the woman decides to keep a child.

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.

It makes no sense for a woman who gets an abortion to pay money to the partner who didn't want one. The money the partner pays when a woman keeps a child is not for the woman, its to help raise the child.

[milomorris]

It makes no sense for a woman who gets an abortion to pay money to the partner who didn't want one.

Right. Maybe I wasn't clear. If the woman aborts the baby that the man wanted, she should compensate him. This is similar to suing someone in civil court for a wrongful death.

The money the partner pays when a woman keeps a child is not for the woman, its to help raise the child.

I get that part, but why should he have to pay to help raise a child that he didn't want. The woman who has the baby (against the man's wishes), and also gets child support, is literally having her cake and eating it too.

[Monika]

Right. Maybe I wasn't clear. If the woman aborts the baby that the man wanted, she should compensate him. This is similar to suing someone in civil court for a wrongful death.

this is a very weird comparison. The woman isn´t commiting a crime when doing an abortion. Therefor no compensation should be awarded the male.