General Question

Pandora's avatar

Can any woman now sue the state for child support if she lives in a state that prevents abortion?

Asked by Pandora (30744points) 2 weeks ago

Here is my thinking. Roe vs. Wade was or is being overturned and from what I understand it will be left up to the states to decide if abortion is illegal in their state. So if a young pregnant woman without the financial means of moving to get an abortion is forced to have a child, can she argue the state should provide for the child financially until it is an adult?
Also if such a case was won, wouldn’t it mean that all women are entitled to have the state support their children since their rights to decide on what happens in their life is being decided by that state?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

123 Answers

elbanditoroso's avatar

Logic and fairness play NO role when it comes to laws.

Pandora's avatar

@elbanditoroso True, but I look at it like when the nation made children going to school mandatory. Public schools were made. So if they are making birthing mandatory once you are pregnant then public financial support should exist to support these children whether they have a mommy or a mom and dad for support. Public schools are available to the rich as well. Not just the poor.
So I’m thinking this would open up a pandora’s box. You (the state) want it, you pay for it.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Here the state supports the child regardless, if the mother applies and is in the lower income bracket. I don’t see this, if law, would change anything.

chyna's avatar

Our state has many programs in place to help low income families with checks given each month per child. They give food assistance, no cost health care, home assistance for utility bills, school assistance and more.
This may come into play in any law suits.

LadyMarissa's avatar

The next thing that will be cut out is state supported child care. ALL assistance will be going away…including Social Security!!!

Pandora's avatar

@chyna My point is if a woman or family is forced by law to give birth, whether she has the means or not, wouldn’t the state still be fully responsible to support the child if she desired not to have it? I used public schools above as an example of state mandates. Because this is what it would be. It would be a state mandate for pregnant women to give birth.

I also see where orphanages may need to be necessary again. People think that giving kids up for adoption would be the answer, but many people are opting out of having children because of the economy, also some states are too strict in adoption.

I know someone who couldn’t adopt because she had no close blood relatives nearby who would take an adopted child if she and her husband were killed. She can’t have children and really wanted to adopt. After months of jumping through hoops they told her the reason was her and his lack of nearby married relatives. She has a sister and brother but neither are married and so they said they were not suitable to be parents.

They are trying so hard to make sure the kid doesn’t end up in the system again that they end up staying in the system. So needless to say. They looked into private adoption but it was way too expensive and she said she felt sleazy like they were trying to buy a child, so they. decided to get a dog instead.

chyna's avatar

I do get what you are saying, but I guarantee our lawmakers are not at all concerned about the outcome of women delivering babies they can’t take care of.
Most of our lawmakers are elderly men who don’t have a clue.

filmfann's avatar

Just because the woman got fucked by the state doesn’t make them the father of her child.
Of course, that is part of the hypocrisy of the Right: they care deeply about the life of the child right up to the moment it is born, and no further.

zenvelo's avatar

@Pandora Texas is considering getting SCOTUS to overturn requiring state to provide education

LadyMarissa's avatar

A growing number of companies are adding a benefit where they are willing to pay for the travel to a location where abortions are legal.

Pandora's avatar

@zenvelo Wow! Abbott seems to be anti-everything and at this point, it seems he’s also anti-business because what business would want to pay their workers’ children’s education to attract quality workers? Man has lost his marbles if he ever had them in the first place.
If I was Beto I would put up big signs. First, he’s anti books now he’s just anti-children. So he wants the poor to be forced to give birth and now he doesn’t think Texas should educate said, children. Amazing.

Pandora's avatar

@LadyMarissa Well if the story Zenvelo posted comes to play out, I think a lot of businesses are going to draw the line at having to pay for employees children education.

Caravanfan's avatar

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Good question tho.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravan Wouldn’t it be great if we had digital birth control that was fail safe, so if you wanted a child yo set it to Conception? And if not set it to the opposite.

We’ve made strides but you’d think some big tech could eliminate the whole issue by now.

Dutchess_III's avatar

We have birth control that’s close to that @KNOWITALL. But I imagine they’ll be coming for that next.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III I’ve never heard anything against that except by Catholics.

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL Yes, that would be awesome.

janbb's avatar

@KNOWITALL Sure, that’s a great theory but what about the kids that are getting fucked by their relatives or gang raped?

Pandora's avatar

Believe it or not Catholics rarely get into the convo of birth control for others. Just themselves. It’s usually the religious radical extreme right who wants to stop it. Personally I think its all about suppressing women. Keep them barefoot, pregnant, and poor and ignorant and then they can be managed.

seawulf575's avatar

Will the woman be able to sue the state if she gets pregnant and isn’t allowed to get an abortion? There are a few aspect of this question I don’t think the OP has considered. Was the woman forced by the state to have unprotected sex or ANY sex for that matter? If she WAS, then the question might have merit. Does the woman want to give the state the right to approve or disapprove of her having sex? If she gives them that right and she gets pregnant then she might have a case. Did she get pregnant all by herself without a man being present? If so, she MIGHT have a case.

But this opens up other questions that tie in as well. If you are in a state that allows abortions whenever for whatever reason: can a man sue the woman for getting an abortion without consulting him first? After all it is his sperm that brought about that pregnancy. If the concern is it’s her body, her choice, should he be able to be held accountable for supporting the child if it is born? If he isn’t allowed a say in whether or not to have a child, should he really be on the hook for someone else’s decisions?

smudges's avatar

@Pandora Yes, adoption is expensive. My ex and I looked into adoption and the minimum was $20,000 25 years ago, and that wasn’t even for an infant. It’s just another business – the business of selling children. I don’t mean that no one in the business has a heart or good intentions, but let’s call it what it is. My dad would now and then ask my ex and I when we were going to get a child. I asked him to please stop asking, that it was expensive and painful. I admit that this was a little bitchy and mean and I regret it, but I said, “What did you guys pay for me?” He said around $500 – the fee for the hospital (where the mother gave birth).

If only there were some way to get people who wanted a baby together with a person who didn’t want their baby, things would be perfect. Instead, we hear about the black market and women giving birth and throwing the baby away, literally. Hell, in my “wholesome” midwestern town, a woman recently gave birth on a sidewalk in 22 degree weather, then simply walked away. Thanks to strangers who saw it, it was saved. Can you imagine what went on in the thinking of that tiny brain? left on an icy cold hard surface, no loving arms to shield it or voice to murmur in its ear? Even with no words to describe it, it must have felt emotional as well as physical pain. I tend to believe that a part of that little soul has been damaged irrevocably. It will never have the words to say what happened, but some small part will always have to live with not being wanted.

I’d hate to see orphanages make a comeback, but like you, I think it will happen. Then the state will pay! After the damage is done.

Pandora's avatar

@smudges I just read how some states allow rapist to sue for parental rights. That means the victim on top of now having to have the baby can now be tied to the rapist or surrender the baby to a known rapist. I feel like I stepped into a dystopian country. So unreal it hurts.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@janbb They usually keep them here. Whether it’s Downs, autism or a disability, they keep them.

For instance, my very liberal best friend (private school, money) was married. She got pregnant by her boyfriend and ended up divorcing the husband for the boyfriend. She had the baby. It never even crossed my mind she’d consider abortion, regardless of her political ideals.

Another very poor couple, both alcoholics, had two kids. The girl had a cleft palate and the boy had severe mental handicap. Neither were religious and kept both kids, got them in programs and did their best. The boy is thriving in independent living as an adult, the girl got corrective work and is gorgeous with a beautiful little girl of her own.

That is the predominant mindset here, and likely other red states.

smudges's avatar

@Pandora That’s just despicable! I can hardly find words to describe how wrong that is on a number of levels.

Dutchess_III's avatar

How come nobody is addressing the fact that the fathers often pressure the women into an abortion. That was the case with me.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III We totally do understand that it’s often coercion and manipulation on life side. Hell even physical threat. I’m sorry you had to go thru that.

Dutchess_III's avatar

My parent’s marriage had imploded. Mom moved home to the Pacific Northwest. I was at college in Manhattan, Kansas. I really had no one to turn to except myself. And I was scared shitless.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Ugh, how horrible. Where were your cousins, aunts, uncles and all of them?

Dutchess_III's avatar

In Washington State and Texas @KNOWITALL. I grew up with NO extended family. It was just the 5 of us at Christmas and Thanksgiving, all my life.

si3tech's avatar

Did the state get her pregnant?

JLeslie's avatar

As people said above, the state pays for basics to keep the children alive and sheltered. The state (at least some states) do their best to find out who the father is and go after him for child support so the tax payers have less of a burden. People think the state is helping the mother by pursuing the father for child support, but really the state is also helping itself.

Republicans generally don’t like to pay for other people’s abortions. Some of them don’t like it because they see it as murder, understandable, but plenty of them don’t like it because they don’t want to pay period. They don’t want their money paying for someone else’s problem. They don’t consider the reality that the children cost them much much more in tax dollars.

jca2's avatar

@JLeslie: If I had to guess, Republicans would rather a woman be forced to go through with the pregnancy, and they’ll pay in the form of public assistance, rather than her have an abortion, which would be way, way less for them to pay, because they view having a baby as a form of punishment. She’s punished because now she’s strapped with a baby who needs constant care, and this keeps the woman stuck home (presumably) and with limited options. The alternative is she has an abortion, is up and at ‘em in a few days and she’s back out partying and hanging out, no punishment.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 I completely agree with the punishment angle. I think they might frame it as it’s her responsibility since she was careless, or that she has to deal with the consequences of her decision to have sex. Personal responsibility. All those catch phrases.

snowberry's avatar

There’s always adoption. There are people who would love to have a baby but can’t. Why not put the baby up for abortion instead of killing it?

smudges's avatar

@snowberry Read what I wrote above, the one that begins, “Yes, adoption is expensive”. It’s just not that simple. Wish it were.

Pandora's avatar

@snowberry Do you ever wonder why people adopt children from other countries and sometimes handicapped children? We have both here. Why are they so hard to adopt? We will just end up with orphanages and as the economy gets harder fewer people will even want children. It is already playing out like that in other countries where there are more people dying than are being born. We aren’t there yet but our nation is starting to see birth rates fall. I also think a lot of couples may choose to opt out of having children and even marriage. That too is happening in other nations where the booming cost of housing and childcare makes it impossible to raise even one child, so women have figured out if they don’t need a man for a family, then stay single and go for a career that pays well and gives them opportunities to live nice and travel with other single friends.

flutherother's avatar

A child’s requirements don’t end when it is born, they begin. Children require financial support, shelter, food, medical care and education. If the state won’t provide these essentials, then the state has no right to insist the child be born.

JLeslie's avatar

@snowberry I can’t imagine handing over my child to someone else. The Nazis would have to be coming after me.

People say “just give the baby away” like it’s no big deal. It seems to me like a torture for the mother (not only in the moment, but for the rest of her life). I guess some people hear it enough growing up that they feel at peace with it if they have to do it.

A lot of babies don’t get adopted, and they wind up in the system. There are so many abortions, are people really imaging how many more children it will be? The best goal is to prevent pregnancies. Over time the US has cut abortion rates way down. There is every reason to believe we can have even fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place through education and availability of birth control.

Not to mention pregnancy and children can harm a woman’s ability to be educated, especially young women, and make financial stability and prosperity more difficult, especially poor women. Barefoot and pregnant is a real thing. Keep the women at home so they aren’t competing with the men.

jca2's avatar

It will be interesting to see, if abortion is outlawed in, say, half the states, what it does to the poverty levels in those states. It would take about 20 years to really be something quantifiable, when those babies are teens or college age. Whatever the number of abortions is now, in those states, let’s assume those are going to be babies born, who will eventually become children and adults, mostly impoverished, because let’s face it, the wealthy ones will find a way to obtain an abortion.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca2 That will be interesting. I wonder if there is already a relationship between abortions and poverty in states, or maybe it should be unplanned births and poverty.

In the book Freakonomics the authors found a correlation between abortion and crime. They argued legalizing abortion lowered crime. I’m not sure if the argument still holds with crime going up in some places.

SnipSnip's avatar

No. You are responsible for yourself and for your offspring.

Perfect answer from @si3tech.

janbb's avatar

@SnipSnip So I guess you’re saying that the father should be responsible as well?

SnipSnip's avatar

@janbb It does still take two to tango as far as I know.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yes the father should also be responsible. But so many just abscond.

snowberry's avatar

@JLeslie ”I can’t imagine handing over my child to someone else. The Nazis would have to be coming after me.”

So, you’d rather kill your child than give him or her up for adoption? Wow.

cheebdragon's avatar

Foster care adoption is free in most cases throughout the United States. Because children in foster care are in the legal custody of the state, most governments will cover the legal fees of adoption, which is usually less than $3,600. Also, many states will provide ongoing health care in the form of Medicaid for a child adopted from foster care until he or she is 21 years old. Ongoing services, such as counseling, may also be provided. If your child is classified as “special needs,” you may receive an additional monthly stipend after you adopt. In some states, children in sibling groups, those in racial or ethnic groups exiting the system at a slower rate, and children over a certain age are designated as special needs cases. Children adopted from foster care may also receive college tuition assistance from institutions that receive funding from the state. Some may even be able to attend the university for free.
adoption.com

JLeslie's avatar

@snowberry No. If the Nazis were coming after me I would give my child to a family that could hopefully take him or her to a safe place. That’s what I said in my answer. I’d likely wind up dead myself. It’s the Nazis after all.

Caravanfan's avatar

@snowberry I encourage you to read this article by the libertarian Reason.com where they discuss the “what about adoption” option.

https://reason.com/2022/05/06/ending-roe-threatens-more-than-abortion-rights/

Caravanfan's avatar

It’s as if the people who say “what about adoption” only care about the woman as being an incubator and they give zero shits about the woman herself.

janbb's avatar

@Caravanfan I agree. Anyone who has gone through it knows that pregnancy and childbirth are body and life changing if not a real ordeal. No one should be forced by anyone else to go through that.

seawulf575's avatar

I think the real decision comes BEFORE conception. Men and women choose to have sex, often unprotected sex. They don’t want to make intelligent decisions at that point, but want to say that abortion should be available to correct their poor judgement. Over and over again in some cases. No one really wants to talk about that. And unprotected sex leads to all sorts of STIs. This country spends a ton of money treating these. According to the CDC in 2018, 1 in 5 people had STIs….68 Million infections in 2018 alone. This cost $16B to treat. But hey, let’s not try making people think about being smart BEFORE they get into trouble.

kritiper's avatar

No. That’s the beauty of Freedom of Choice.

seawulf575's avatar

@kritiper And with every choice come responsibility.

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 All sex is consentual?

janbb's avatar

@Caravanfan And I also guess no teenagers act on impulse – and contraception is readily available everywhere!

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan Nope, not at all. But be honest…99% of it is.

seawulf575's avatar

@janbb Of course they do. But interesting thing…when I was growing up, teen pregnancy was an extreme rarity. These days its a commonplace thing. Weren’t we teens back in the day?

chyna's avatar

^Source for your 99% answer, wulfie?

janbb's avatar

@seawulf575 When I was growing up, the one girl that we knew got pregnant in our graduating class was not allowed to walk at graduation. How many others maybe hid their pregnancies in shame and got abortions early. I can’t conclude anything about how much teen pregnancy there was.

seawulf575's avatar

@chyna Just a guess. Figure there are about 110M men and an equal number of women in the country. Figure they are having sex even once a month on average (which is low) means we are looking at roughly 1.32B sexual events happening every year. On the biggest years, the most number of rapes was around 150,000. Gee, I guess that puts it more at 99.89%. Now figure that some of these women (since only women have abortions despite current narratives about gender) are gay that might knock the total number down. Let’s say 35% are lesbians. That means the total number of hetero women is closer to 71.5M That puts the number closer to 99.8%. I just think it’s easier to say 99%. Do you have any stats to dispute this?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

STRAW MAN doesn’t mean jack shit !

Where ate the facts and stats ?

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Facts not opinion TOO !

smudges's avatar

@seawulf575 Your guess means jack.

seawulf575's avatar

@Tropical_Willie and @smudges In typical fashion you both want to try making something I said to be wrong because you don’t like my estimations. Yet in that same fashion, neither of you ever shows anything concrete in the way of facts and stats (which you scream about needing) to show I am wrong. It should be easy to do, right? After all, my guess doesn’t mean jack. Prove me wrong or just accept it and move on.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: If you read the link provided by @raum (the CDC link), it provides concrete data showing the teen pregnancy rate is down. I am guessing you didn’t read it. It’s very concise.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@seawulf575 also posted a link showing teen pregnancies are down, while simultaneously arguing that they are up!

chyna's avatar

Actually, @Seawulf575 answered @Caravanfan about how much sex was consensual at which wulfie said 99%. Nothing about teenagers or pregnancy in general. But how much sex is consensual! That’s when I asked for a source. There is no way to know this.

Caravanfan's avatar

Let’s take his number at face value and say that 99% is consentual, that’s fine, whatever. That means that 1% of acts of sexual intercourse are non-consentual.

Let’s run some numbers. The Earth’s population is approximately 8 billion people. Let’s do a really conservative estimate and say that 1/100 of them have sex on any particular day. That’s 80 million acts of sexual intercourse a day. We posit that 99% of them are consentual. That means that there are 800,000 non-consentual acts a day. Let’s round that up to an even million.

So 1 million cases of rape a day. Let’s say that 10% of those rapes end up with pregnancy. That means that there are 100,000 pregnancies, per day, that are conceived out of rape. So in a year, again being conservative and multiplying by 100 (instead of 365), there are potentially one hundred million preganancies per year that are coneived by rape.

smudges's avatar

* Your ‘estimations’ were wild guesses at best.

*I’ve never screamed about, let alone asked about sources. (I take that back, I think once, recently, I asked RedDeer for a source)

*I never planned to or tried to show you were wrong; I simply said that imo you’re way off.

*I don’t need to prove you wrong or accept it. Those aren’t the only two choices.

Caravanfan's avatar

@smudgesof course they were wild estimates. But it illustrates the absurdity of the point that when people say something like “only 1%” when you deal with large numbers then you still get a significant number.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III Nope, I didn’t. Go back and find it for me if you like, it isn’t here. But don’t let that stop you from making things up.

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan The population is nearing 8B people. But we are talking about consensual sex and abortion so you have to go to only women That brings it down to roughly 4B. Most girls cannot conceive before the age of 11 so that is roughly 15% of the population which brings us down to 3.4B. Now going by your numbers we are not at 800,000 non-consensual instances, we are lower to 340,000 instances. But that is in the whole world. Our laws apply only to this country. So far you evaluation has no merit. But I’ll continue.

The US population is roughly 332M persons. Half of those are women so we are at 166M.
And we actually have stats that show the highest number of rapes in this country were under 140,000. That means you are looking at 0.08%. So my 1% is about right. So while rape is absolutely horrible, it isn’t nearly as prevalent as the left would make it out to be. And let’s be completely honest here: If a woman is raped, do you believe it would take her 15 weeks to decide to get rid of the baby? After all, that is what the laws that are being protested and are in front of the SCOTUS are actually addressing.

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 Who are you to judge a woman who is violently traumatized?

seawulf575's avatar

Oh good lord. You are the one that brought up consensual sex. Non-consensual is called rape. I just showed you the stats on rape and showed how you gave out bogus, unrepresentative stats to make it sound worse than it is.

Caravanfan's avatar

@seawulf575 I was responding to this: ” If a woman is raped, do you believe it would take her 15 weeks to decide to get rid of the baby?”

The answer to that question is screw you. The woman may be conflicted about the decision and delay. Or she might not have enough money. Or any one of a number of reasons. The bottom line is, and I repeat: Who are you to judge and what business is it of yours (or SCOTUS or the state?)

seawulf575's avatar

@Caravanfan So is it finances or legality that you are arguing? And what got us into this foolish conversation is that I said 99% of the abortions were for people that refused to be smart before and during sex. That is, after all, the vast majority of what we are talking about. If you want to throw in rape victims, let’s get to the real number. I showed you a citation that showed 140,000 rapes happened in the highest number year since the 1990’s. This citation tells us that only 5% of rapes result in a pregnancy. So the number that falls into the group that might need/want an abortion. So that is 7000 cases out of 615,000 per year. So now we are getting to the numbers that apply.

And your statement about what business is it of the SCOTUS to judge why a woman might want an abortion shows how far down the leftist rabbit hole you are. As I just reaffirmed on a different thread, the case in front of the SCOTUS is not about whether abortion should be legal or not. It is about whether it is a Constitutional right or not…should the decision rest in the federal government or in the state legislatures. So the answer is screw you…understand what you are talking about before coming out guns blazing.

JLeslie's avatar

^^Lol. @Caravanfan is down the leftist rabbit hole. Crazy talk. @Caravanfan is one of the most independent politically of the jellies that I’ve witnessed.

Ok, so you think a woman doesn’t have a constitution right over her own body? I think then neither do men. What can we do to use men for the benefit of saving others. Make them give blood every month? Make them give a kidney and some bone marrow? What else can we have the government force them to do?

chyna's avatar

@seawulf575 There is no way to know the real amount of women who have been raped as most do not report it due to nothing happening to their rapist.

janbb's avatar

@all You are arguing the wrong point. It doesn’t matter how many women were raped. A woman should have bodily autonomy and not have to bear a child that she can’t or won’t be able to raise and support. Pregnancy and childbirth are traumatic and only worth going through if a child is wanted.

If people are pro-life, there are many ways to support living children that are not being done in this country; better schools, no lead in the water, safe schools and streets, fresh food available.

smudges's avatar

@Caravanfan I forgot to indicate who I was responding to; hope you know it was seawolf

KNOWITALL's avatar

I believe the crux of the issue, at least from many, is they see pregnancy as a controllable situation, as @seawulf575 said.
Perhaps not for the smallest percentage of rape or incest reported, but for the most percentage of unplanned pregnancies.
That difference in thought process seems to be the biggest obstacle in resolving this issue.

janbb's avatar

And yet, if a person smokes and gets lung cancer they are still treated by the medical profession. If a person is obese and gets hypertension, they are still treated. What about drug addicts?

If we use personal responsibility as the crux and I do understand that argument, then almost no one should be treated for their “mistakes.”

And if unwanted pregnancy is a separate case, shouldn’t the males be penalized as well?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@janbb Those thing’s affect the person themselves, abortion ends a seperate life. Drug addicts who are pregnant lose their children, it’s a big deal here.

As far as men’s responsibility, of course I agree with you. But we still are dealing with patriarchy who refuse to penalize men, unfortunately.

We literally had to hand child support the address of a man before they’d go after him for child support, as he’d left the state to avoid it. Many women will also leave off the fathers name from the birth certificate so the male is not sought, too.

Caravanfan's avatar

Okay, parting shot before I go away for 3 weeks.
1) The reason why someone wants an abortion is none of your business
2) The reason why someone else wants an abortion is none of your business

It’s really that simple. The decision to have an abortion is up to the woman.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan Enjoy your time off!

And you do realize a lot of women are forced or manipulated into abortions by the other partner right?
I see what you’re saying but I hope you can acknowledge the reality for many, as well.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Didn’t I ask a question asking women if any man asked them if they were on birth control before they had sex? I have never had one single man ask me that. Not one.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III I don’t remember that being asked. And the answer is maybe twice before I was married.

seawulf575's avatar

@janbb “And if unwanted pregnancy is a separate case, shouldn’t the males be penalized as well?” Let’s think about that. I posit that both parties are responsible for the unwanted pregnancy. Outside of Mother Mary, I’ve not heard of too many virgin births. I’ve stated this repeatedly. My position is that Abortion should fall to the states and if the states want to establish laws concerning it, it would be easier to change. But let’s get back to the idea of a man being “punished” for an unwanted pregnancy. Let me start by asking “how is a woman punished by an unwanted pregnancy?” The answer seems obvious. They are required to carry the baby to term, putting up with the discomfort and the changes to their body. They are required to go through the pain of child birth. And then they are required to deal with the baby. But what about the man? The man doesn’t have his body change and he certainly doesn’t go through the pain of child birth. But what about dealing with the baby? Isn’t the father held responsible financially for the baby? I’m not saying he shouldn’t be, I’m just asking. Do you think that having to pay for a child you don’t want for 18 years is easy? Especially since the more you make the more you are expected to pay? The man (if the couple is not married) has no say in whether to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. He has no real rights to that child other than to pay for it. He cannot make decisions about what that child does, or even really help in the child rearing if the mother doesn’t let him. So once the baby is born the man is financially responsible and can’t even really enjoy raising the children. It is a torture in a way. It is certainly a penalty.

My view is that people need to be more responsible up front. Avoid the unwanted pregnancy by taking practical steps. Many of you slam me for not believing that masks work on Covid19 and tell me I’m not taking basic steps to keep others or myself safe. Yet when the impact is an unwanted pregnancy, the idea of following basic protective steps seems to be out the window. Only abortion will do. Nothing else. You don’t want people to actually be responsible, you don’t want them to avoid the need for the abortion, you just want them to get abortions for whatever reason they like, at whatever time in the pregnancy they want. I’ve even heard the proposal of post birth abortions. So you have a child that has been born yet the idea is that it really isn’t a person with rights and the mother should be able to have it “eliminated”. In most places if you kill and independent life it is called murder. But as long as we call it an abortion it is on the table for consideration.

jca2's avatar

There’s no such thing as “post birth abortions.” By definition, there’s no such thing. The idea of a “post birth abortion” is something made up by the Right for dramatic effect.

janbb's avatar

@seawulf575 I don’t know anyone on the pro-choice side who is saying that birth control and preventative measures shouldn’t be widely available. Of course they should and being careful and responsible is much preferable to facing the hardship and dilemma of abortion. It’s only some anti-abortion people who try to limit access to contraception. But if people were always careful and responsible, there would never be any car accidents either!

And that’s all I’m going to say, you can huff and puff all you want but I don’t care to argue all night.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Post birth abortion??? WTF?? That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life!

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Is “post birth abortions” a Tucker Carlson phrase ?

smudges's avatar

@seawulf575 You’re making up silly defenses in response to words that none of us have expressed. Not even worth discussing with you. btw, a post birth abortion is called murder. Idjit.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Maybe he doesn’t understand the meaning of “post.”

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Some people don’t understand English ! !

Maybe they understand Russian.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Post birth abortions made up by the right?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47066307

Sorry, Northam is a Democrat and the bill being proposed is by the Democrats in Virginia. Please read how Northam would describe a post birth abortion would play out. ”“So in this particular example, if a mother’s in labour, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he told WTOP’s Ask the Governor programme Wednesday.

“The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”” Yes, they say it is for fetuses that have severe deformities or which aren’t viable outside the womb. But think about what they are saying. First off, if the baby is born it is no longer a fetus. Calling it one is to try downplaying what they are saying. Secondly, babies are born all the time that are “not viable” outside the womb and yet they manage to save the lives of those babies. Third, if the baby is severely deformed, it would have been noted LONG before the time of birth. Ultrasounds are recommended at several points along the pregnancy to ensure the baby is healthy before it is born. So what they have done is to try creating a law that will allow post birth abortions and they are using reasons that don’t make any sense. If a child is deformed it will be noted long before it is born and existing abortion laws in VA would allow it to be aborted before abortion. If the baby is not viable outside the womb then it will die without the help of a “doctor”. But what they ARE saying is that even after it is born, a baby is not a baby and may still be killed and it can be called an abortion.

seawulf575's avatar

What? No one really understood what the Democrats have already presented? Never heard of a post birth abortion? Wow. And please note that article I cited was from 2019. It wasn’t new, it wasn’t last year. It was 3 years ago. I’d suggest in the future, instead of going with your ingrained need to attack anyone that says something you don’t like, you might want to take a moment to do a 2 minute internet search to see if it is real or not.

janbb's avatar

@seawulf575 If you don’t think this has always been done with non-viable newborn babies, you know very little about medical practice.

jca2's avatar

The link you provided says nothing about post birth abortions. There’s a mention of “post term abortion” by Trump, but nothing legitimate from anybody legitimate.

I did google it before I responded to you above. The definition of abortion is not “post birth” which is why it’s a bullshit claim. Look up “abortion” in the dictionary and then talk to me.

jca2's avatar

Meant to tag @seawulf575 in my comment above.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Post term….what is post term? Oh yeah. Birth. But let’s go a step further. Governor Northam specifically states that after the baby is delivered. But yeah, being delivered doesn’t mean birth, right?

seawulf575's avatar

face it folks, this is the perfect example of Democrats views towards post birth abortion. You can try wiggling around with it, but when the governor explains the situation and uses the terms “the infant would be delivered…” that states clearly that the infant (see Merriam-Webster ) or baby would be delivered (See Merriam-Webster) or born…birthed…and then a decision would be made on whether to let it live or not. And this is in the proposed change to the Virginia abortion law. So they are specifically stating post-birth abortions.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

So the Democrats are telling Merriam Webster what to say ??

. . . and quoting Trump as a “stable genius” as source . . . not valid !

smudges's avatar

@seawulf575 …and then a decision would be made on whether to let it live or not.

That’s been going on for many many years. It’s nothing new, and this new terminology is an oxymoron.

It is done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that is non-viable.”

Northam continued by saying government shouldn’t be involved in these types of decisions and that legislators, especially male legislators, shouldn’t be telling women what to do.

Northam’s office released a statement about his comments: “No woman seeks a third trimester abortion except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities, and the governor’s comments were limited to the actions physicians would take in the event that a woman in those circumstances went into labor,” Ofirah Yheskel, a spokeswoman for Northam, said. ”Attempts to extrapolate these comments otherwise is in bad faith and underscores exactly why the governor believes physicians and women, not legislators, should make these difficult and deeply personal medical decisions.”

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: I provided for you the definition of abortion to show you that once a baby is born, whatever is done to is is no longer considered an abortion. I thought that was pretty clear. An abortion is done to a fetus (which is also why I provided for you the definition of a fetus). Once the baby is out of the mother, it’s no longer a fetus. I gave you both definitions to show you that no matter what your link says, by definition of abortion and fetus, there is no such thing as post birth abortion.

Trump might call it that but Trump is not what I call an authority on medical procedures. Some Virginia governor can attach any terminology he wants onto anything, but is he an authority on medical procedures? Just because Trump says the sky is yellow doesn’t mean the sky is yellow.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Trump is an idiot.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Any followers of are fourth graders !

Pandora's avatar

@seawulf575 Northam isn’t the governor of Virginia and the article was from 2019. I think the problem is that there are children born with severe issues and right to lifers wanted them saved no matter what. Also, the whole idea that ultrasounds are automatically done is wrong. You assume that everyone gets prenatal care. Some don’t ever get care or get care late in the trimester after they sense something is wrong. Also, ultrasounds are usually provided once. If nothing seems wrong at the time of the ultrasound and the mother seems to be in good health then there probably won’t be a second one. I know someone who actually worked with premature babies with extreme issues. They don’t always know.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 You gave me definitions and you honestly believe that is all that goes on. Yet I mentioned post-birth abortions and you all acted like I was nuts and that there was no such thing. Definition-wise you are 100% correct. But in the political realm of abortion, there have been proposals of just that to be put into abortion laws. So you are 100% wrong. And I just gave you a link to the story to prove it. A Democratic governor went on tv to defend it. So stop trying to make it not so….it IS so.

seawulf575's avatar

@Pandora Northam isn’t governor of Virginia any longer and that citation was from 2019. Amazing you picked up on that, especially since I already pointed it out. But Northam didn’t write that bill proposal. Other Democrats did. And other Democrats fully supported it as did the Governor. And it isn’t even a new thought…it was proposed in 2019. Trying to downplay it doesn’t change the fact it is true…that they did propose infanticide under the guise of abortion.

And now you are trying to justify it as well. You just described a situation where a woman decides to have the baby…carry it to full term until she sees it’s not perfect and then decides she wants to have “an abortion”. Maybe some of your fellow jellies will come down on you for supporting murder, but I really doubt it.

seawulf575's avatar

@smudges of course Northam’s press secretary tries to run damage control, that’s her job. But I quoted the governor. I didn’t take it out of context and I didn’t extrapolate. And just like @Pandora you are trying to justify it. The idea being presented is that if a woman decides to carry her child to term and when gives birth and finds out it isn’t perfect, she can decide at that point to abort it. At that point, it is a baby, not a fetus. It is a separate life so “aborting” it is correctly called murder.

Are deformed babies born? Yep. Do some babies die when they are born because they cannot continue on their own? Yep. But when those babies die on their own it is different from killing them. I’m entirely against keeping people alive for the sake of keeping them alive, if they would not be able to survive without extraordinary medical intervention. This goes for babies all the way up to octogenarians and beyond. But that isn’t what is actually being said.

And let me also point out this is not an isolated incident in Virginia. There is a whole school of thought that infanticide should be allowed. The reasoning is that since abortion is allowed for basically any reason and a new born is not really any more developed than a late term fetus, there really isn’t any difference.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: I guess you missed my point. Just because Northam calls something a post birth abortion doesn’t make it so, because there is no such thing as a post birth abortion, because by definition, an abortion is not post birth. I thought I made that clear above when I said he’s not an authority on medical procedures. Also, that’s why I posted the lilnk to the definition of “abortion.”

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 I didn’t miss your point but I suspect you have missed mine. You know and I know that there is no such thing as post birth abortion. Yet that doesn’t stop them from calling it that. After all, abortion is legal so we should be able to “abort” a baby that is deformed if the mother decides it is so. The point is not that it IS an abortion, it is that they are using abortion as a way to justify it. And as I said, Northam and the Virginia Democrats are by no means the only ones thinking like this. Go do a search and you will find there are whole groups and “medical experts” that support it and are okay with calling it abortion. Here is a perfect example. They say it should be okay to “abort” a newborn even if they aren’t deformed. Because, after all, a newborn really can’t survive on its own, regardless of how healthy it is, just like a late term fetus. So it really isn’t a person.

The whole thing is ghoulish, but it is the natural progression of the abortion drive. Look at Roe v Wade. It gave very specific times and reasons why an abortion should be okay. It broke it down into trimesters based on the needs of the woman, the decisions of the doctors, and the needs of the baby. But that wasn’t good enough. So along comes PPvC which takes away most of the restrictions on abortion spelled out in RvW. But now that isn’t good enough because what if a woman decides she doesn’t want the headache of a baby or putting it up for adoption after its born? It really can’t support itself so it isn’t really a person so it really isn’t murder.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Why are we even having this ridiculous “post birth abortion” discussion? Trump just figured out how to use the word “post” to mean “after,” and here we are.

Pandora's avatar

@seawulf575 I didn’t read all your comments. Just the one where you said, Governor Northam. Not former Governor Northam. At the time I didn’t have time to go through all your stuff. I understand why they would try to call it an abortion even after the child is born and that is because euthanasia is illegal. So newborns who may live a few days and maybe suffer in great pain till their death are not allowed to be put to sleep. They don’t have to provide life-saving procedures but they still have to do the basics. Feed and keep warm and try to minimize pain but euthanasia is still very illegal. Is the word post-abortion stupid? Yes. But with euthanasia still considered murder I see this as an attempt to work through a possible loop-hole. Did it take? No and with 6 paid and bought for Justices, I don’t see it happening so why did you even bother to bring it up. It has nothing to do with my question.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther