It's quite simple. You either support a woman's right to choose, or you don't.
If you do, restrictions such as time limits achieve nothing except to demean women.
I disagree with this. I support a woman's right to choose. I do not support their right to abort the child the day before it would be born naturally. I am not alone. The overwhelming majority of Americans take my position.
But even at that point, the day before a natural birth would occur, I support a woman's right to choose. I simply change that choice from killing a viable baby to putting it up for adoption. Indeed in my state all hospitals must accept, without question, any child a parent might choose to abandon. The state, quite correctly, takes responsibility for these children until they can be placed for adoption.
ZAM SAID: No, we must remember that turning unwanted children into a paying commodity is not in societies interest.
Nonsense. We do that already. Foster programs are filled with unwanted or abused programs and they are largely paid for using tax money. The fault in your argument is that you are arguing some theoretical societal interest. One could argue that beyond a certain point, having children at all is not in societies interest. But your argument fails on two additional levels.
1. Societies take on moral responsibilities (such as the protection of children) even when the expense to the society in inconvenient. Whether that child is born to two parents killed in a car or abandoned by a woman suffering the consequences of a drunken Saturday night is irrelevant. The decision is not based upon some moral judgment about the mother or father but rather about a societal interest in all children who live in that society.
I know that you are arguing that some women may choose to have a child in order to get money to live on. I would like to ask you to articulate an alternative to that. Please include in your plan how you intend to guarantee that mother a job that pays enough for rent, utilities, insurance, daycare, and so forth. Please do not insult us by proposing that the mother be paid minimum wage. My guess would be that to successfully raise a child, without government help, in most of the US's larger cities, would take a job that pays her about $30.00 an hour. That is $60K per year before taxes and in LA that would probably not be near enough. Also spare us some moral hazard argument. This is not about naughty mothers but rather about what is best for children. Simply put, if you want to talk money, it is where the government can best have the child cared for at the least expense to the taxpayers.
2. And, of course the second factor is that of the child. I could make a very good case for taking children away from destitute and uneducated mothers/fathers and putting them in "affluent foster homes". We place these kids, who would otherwise be raised in poor and dangerous environments, with middle to upper middle class families, where both parents have college educations, and pay these parents to raise them. Then when they are old enough to attend college, we pay that at the expense of the state. This way we break the cycle of poverty. Sad for the parents who might actually love their child but what the fuck. That is life in the food chain and besides....we are doing what is best for the child. Instead of becoming a crack whore with bastard children of her own, the baby becomes a doctor with children of her own.
I hear your argument all of the time Zam but it is simply shallow. A mere platitude. But if you actually have that magic wand that can cure generations of poverty without costing "society" a cent, I am all ears.
- By Fasces
- By Rugoz
- By Skynet
- By Tainari88