Child support in the Womb

I agree. What is flawed is that this policy doesn't achieve that (IMO, because it was never intended to). The mother can't claim any child support until after the child is born and can't know if she'll be awarded any, how much it will be or when she might receive it. All this does in practice is extend the potential starting point for the calculation back nine months (which in itself might not change anything since how much the father can realistically afford in a key factor too).

That isn't a very effective way to counter my argument that this is about socio-politics and moralising against abortion rather than actually supporting pregnant women.

I'm not the one conflating them. It's the new legislation as written that treats abortion and miscarriage exactly the same. Even under the purported motive of protecting unborn children, it only actually applies if and when the child is born alive.

 

It certainly gets us closer to it. You have not explained why fathers should get a free ride when it comes to supporting the children they create.

Because it is not an argument but mere conjecture on your part. How does insuring fathers provide the support for which they are responsible NOT support pregnant women?

How would YOU write the legislation then?

 

First there does not have to be extra, that is their choice to have the extra's created to give them a better chance, sacrificing the embryo's which are not implanted. Some countries in fact prohibit or restrict multiple embryo's being produced.

They are not being forced to they are eventually killed but they certainly know the cost that will be incurred before they decide to proceed.

 

you get a bunch ready as the success rate is not 100%, the rest are tossed if the customer doesn't want them

 

I never said they should. I'm not arguing against child support in general, I just don't see this change having any real practical benefit.

Because pregnant women won't get any money as a result of this. In practice, all it does is present a possible increase in child support, if and when it is claimed.

I don't see any legitimate purpose of this proposed change in the first place so I wouldn't write it at all. If we actually want to improve support for pregnant women, I'd focus on ensuring there is quality pre-natal and post-natal healthcare available for everyone, comprehensive sexual health education in schools and general sexual health information more generally available, so women (and men) are best placed to make the best decisions and choices for themselves are their prospective children.

 

Legislation needs to assure that women get pregnancy healthcare. Our for-profit system doesn't measure up.

And, the same can be said for child care. For example, in many cases working single mothers are struggling, with child care costing as much or more than minimum wage pays. And, numerous two parent homes are struggling, too.

 

Our country abounds in healthcare for women and the profit driven produces that care and the competition strives for improvement like any other business. YES we as a SOCIETY decided single motherhood was a wonderful thing and women should engage in more of it and men really aren't needed and we see the results, struggling women and the children they produce. I would not suggest you try to compare the economic success of two parent homes and children with single parent you will surely come out on the wrong end of that one.

 

I think the father paying his share of 9 months of pregancy will have measurable and highly practicle benefits. And even do so if the baby either dies naturally or the mother has it killed before it is born, there are cost nonetheless. Let's make sure the law and any sanctions more us further TO that being the result, laws against rape and murder don't stop all rape and murder but certainly they can help prevent them and hold those who do commit them responsible. And this in no way precludes any pre-natal or post-natal but will only help pay for MORE OF IT.

Again I would think EVERYONE would want to hold fathers of these children more responsible.

 

You can't stop single parenthood. And, your comparisons mean NOTHING.

We have single parenthood when we lose troops, when there are car accidents, when we get shot, when we allow divorce, adoption, "inheritance" of kids when parents die, etc., etc.

This wasn't a "decision". It's real life.

And, our healthcare insurance policies cost more than those on minimum wage can pay.

 

That's a fine principle, but I'm not sure how it could actually made to happen in those cases where the father doesn't want to (or can't) pay. Regardless, the law change this thread is about certainly won't achieve that, so obviously that it can't possibly have been the actual intention.

 

The same when they don't want to pay after their child is born. Ask Hunter Biden.

 

But was that resolved in weeks or did it take years (I honestly don't know, but I'd put money on it being closer to the latter)? The point with payment to support an ongoing pregnancy is that there is obviously a very immediate and very short time factor that isn't going to wait for the lumbering legal processes. That is why, regardless of any moral or legal principles we all might hold to, the real world practicalities are difficult (maybe impossible) to overcome.

The underlying question raised by the OP topic is whether the people making the political decisions are focused on actually addressing those practicalities or merely making a performative show of moralising without any real care for whether they actually benefit any real people.

 

Depends on how hard the mother wants to go after it. Why do you assert that in only matters if the money is paid DURING the pregnancy, reimbursements work quite well too. You also seem to assume that all fathers named by the mothers will simply deny it. I can imagine that most knowing they are the fathers and knowing that they will be subject to a DNA test will just own up and start paying their share of the expenses.

It was turned into that by those who in the typical knee-jerk fashion had to make it about abortion. Morality had nothing to do with what the court was looking at or the ruling it made which alerted the state legislature to this gap in the law which was then corrected. There was no moralizing in it and it is a dead issue.

 

The problem relates to the cost of healthcare, missed work, child care and other costs that are part of pre and post natal care - even when there are no exceptional health issues involved. Promising a few thousand at the end of the year is not a solution.

That money has to be available when the costs are accrued. For example, it can not be part of a tax return, as that is not when the money is needed. Plus other forms of tax breaks don't work, as half our population doesn't pay taxes - the portion that are most seriously impacted by these costs.

One of the reasons given for abortion is that the woman does not believe she can pay the costs involved - thus she can't successfully fill the responsibilities related to pregnancy and child birth, even if she wants to.

 

That is absolute quackery. I thought at first this law might help women, but with this stipulation it's obvious it's only real purpose is to wedge another foot in the door of personhood. Looks like anti-abortionists have been listening to the folks telling them that personhood only exists as a concept, both formally and informally, in the abortion debate and they're trying to branch outward.

 

How do you view that as quackery?

If she gets a little child support payment now, how is that all that different from having to wait 9 months for it?

And why pay women for a child when they might kill that child a short time later and be legally entitled to do it?

You think allowing the alleged father the opportunity for DNA testing before ordering him to pay money is "quackery"?

 

The bills come in at the time they are incurred. When prenatal checkups, etc., are done is when the bill is due.

Yes. The fetus could die at some time after a prenatal checkup. Caregivers still want their money at the time - not in 9 months!

Being the responsible parent does not necessarily mean being the biological father.