The problem with that is that it only works in a world where the government has the funding to care for the child if the mother ends up on government support. The system is design like it is for a reason. Money.
The state always wants to have an avenue for reimbursement, and as such, this will not happen anytime soon.
Single mothers who are already impoverished generally aren't going to be getting enough help from child support to keep them above the welfare threshold.
But yes, I agree that in our current system in the US, it would neither be possible or ethical to introduce such a system.
What changes when you're in the middle of giving birth exactly? Why draw the line there?
At that point you can't feasibly abort the baby, and another set of options has to be pursued. Giving it up for adoption and hoping it finds a good home, or raising it yourself are the only two options I can think of.
I mean you can just kill it, though? What changes so drastically in a couple of hours that means you suddenly aren't allowed to kill it anymore?
Obviously I'm trying to provoke a bit here, but what's the philosophical justification?
I honestly can't give an exact reason. The only thing I can think of is "it's wrong" when I try and think of an exact why to your question, which isn't a valid answer at all.
Hey, thanks for the honesty - maybe someone else can give their reason, but in the meantime I'm glad that you actually made a post about this instead of not responding. It's appreciated.
Personally, it has to do with bodily autonomy. As soon as it's no longer part of your body, you can no longer use that reasoning to deletus the feuts.
That's not the point. The point is that the government does not want to pay for anything it doesn't have to, hence going for the father.
I mean not really though. The reason we have child support is a holdover (though, still necessary) from when women had much less freedom - their main "purpose" was to have kids, so there was a real concern about men who would skip and leave women they got pregnant with a kid the mother wouldn't really be able to provide for.
In more modern times, women have a much better time finding meaningful employment, and if abortion was super avail. (among other things) then we could go even further and remove the child-support system as it is.
My point was if it was just about money and the government, it doesn't really make too much a difference, child support (generally, and basically) only covers costs for raising the kid, meaning if the mother still can't work to take care of the kid - or generally just can't get meaningfully employed, then the mother is still going to be relying on welfare. Is there a difference of total government payout? Sure, but I'd argue it's really not a factor when why child support laws were created, nor should it really be.
Depends.
I think it’s funny how certain groups feel that abortion is bad and the child deserves to live it’s best life, yet don’t give a shit when a child is born and remove any programs designed for the kid to get a good education, meals, etc
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.