Child support in the Womb

Child Services takes babies in cases of adjudication related to the competence of the parent or parents and safety of the child when there are no family members who can do that.

YOU are proposing that babies be kidnapped when the father isn't divulged!!

 

What's stopping them from getting it and how much are YOU willing to pay for. You willing to pay 10% more in income taxes starting right now? How about the FATHERS ensuring the mothers of THEIR babies have proper healthcare. How about we each ensuring we each have healthcare it is part of life you know, YOU are responsible for yourself why is someone else?

Should we simply allow women and men to have unlimited children without any means, or desire, to support them themselves and require other people give up their incomes they are trying to use to raise their own children or take care of themselves and save for their own retirements?

 

On the one hand you say an embryo is a PERSON who is guaranteed the rights of a PERSON.

On the other hand, you're worried that pregnant women might actually get the healthcare they need.

You need to PICK A SIDE.

And, your last paragraph is literally ridiculous.

 

That is exactly what I am proposing, the competence and safety of the child where family members have no desire to provide for them themselves and would rather other people have to give up their means to support their families in order to give them money.

Yes if the mother proves she will not act in the best interest of her child and put that of her baby daddy ahead.....you betcha. The baby will be grabbed up in a heartbeat to a waiting adoptive couple that WILL put the childs interest ahead of their won. Why don't you want to hold the parents responsible for the children they create?

 

My last paragraph is the salient issue here and you won't come within a ten foot pole of it because you can't give a proper answer. Your first paragraph is nonsensical.

 

And none of those reasons require killing the baby.

 

I don't know what you mean here.

Pregnant women aren't going to get rich by getting healthcare. I have healthcare. I don't get money for having a health event.

More nonsense. Prove to the state that you should be allowed to keep your baby? Are you INSANE?

We hold parents responsible today.

 

In leftist society, they rarely have parents at all.

 

so you think the corps that offer this parenting solution should be able to charge child support the new parents for the left over waste of the procedure, cause someone labeled the waste "children"

 

And this right here explains why in America this is the norm

 

Again and again and again it comes back to “embryos are more important than children”. The desire to control women just drips out from sections of the right wing - but it is never them having to be controlled! Oh! No! No wonder American women are demanding rights

 

Amen. And, embryos are more important than women, too!!

The "logic" is unbelievable.

 

Because the legislation just extends the period covered by child support but child support doesn't exist at all in those circumstances, just like with abortion which the OP explicitly excluded.

If that is your argument, would that include the costs prior to and including a (legal) abortion? Because that is specifically not what this proposal involves.

 

''

Never mind embryo's .. all the Human organisms that got flushed down the toilet with morning dump are more important than women.

Sorry Blue .. I just can not agree with your position that the human beings in a turd are babies.

 

Sorry your absurdly fallacious claims that thousands of human organism are flushed has been laid to rest in the the other thread.

 

The question is should it, yes it should do you agree or not?

No I don't think a father should be required to fund an abortion which he opposes do you?

 

I love this idea. However if the baby is determined to no have the DNA of the claimed father the woman should be on the hook to pay him back all his expenses.

 

Wait I thought there was a crisis in that poor women did not have access to abortions???

 

Abortion is quite literally the opposite intent of child support. So on this one agree with you full heartedly

 

Are you admitting there are cost to have your embryos frozen and stored?

 

Getting "rich" has nothing to do with it. Who said the state gets to keep the baby, the baby can be adopted by one of the many many waiting couples begging for young babies to adopt. You want to absolve parents of their responsibility to provide for their children and makes others it seems.

 

You are attempting to make distinctions without merit. The desire to kill those unborn children just drips out for sections of the left wing.

 

Testing of fetal DNA occurs in the first trimester.

 

Sorry Gift that is your absurd, in fact quite quite hilarious fallacious claim not mine. Did you ever bother to bone up on some biology as I suggested and learn the difference here?

 

Well my question to the OP was "does it" because I think there is an inconsistently with the implied purpose of the change and the actual practical implications. It seems they didn't want to discuss that though.

I think the entire concept is flawed (because I feel it is motivated by socio-politics rather than a real desire to help anyone - and yes, I know it was bipartisan) and not the best way to support pregnant women (or their babies).

I didn't mean it would include the costs of an abortion itself. My point is that if this was really about covering the pregnancy costs of the mother, that would still apply to pregnancies that don't end in a live birth (whatever the reason), for the proportion of pregnancy costs up to that point.