60 ms·

Except we don’t force this on people. We give parents the opportunity to opt out through adoption.

by slg 5y ago

leereeves 5y ago
Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. For example, older children can't be given away without their consent, fathers generally can't terminate their responsibility without the mother's consent, and it must be done in a manner that protects the child (not simply abandoned).
- slg 5y ago
  >Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. I don't have to argue against you. I can just point to the leaked draft that argues against you. It specifically cites safe haven laws which allow people to anonymously put their child up for adoption. These laws have no consideration on what the child's life would be like with their biological parents or after they become a ward of the state. The mere existence of those laws is legal precedent that it is acceptable to abdicate care over a child post-birth. Why shouldn't that be possible pre-birth?
  - 5678909787 5y ago
    Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If a child has two parents and one of them drops the child of at a safe haven location and the other reports the child missing, the child will most likely be found and given to the parent who did not abandon the child. Nobody will be prosecuted, but the parent who dropped the child off will be ordered to pay child support. I think this is wrong too, but I think banning abortions is much worse because it's a more direct interference with an individual's body. One is like a a tax, money is taken from you without consent but you are mostly free to get the money however you like. The other is like a mix between forced organ harvesting and slavery where somebody else asserts direct ownership/control over your body.
    - slg 5y ago
      >Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If you can abandon a child without repercussion, how is that not directly affecting parental responsibility? Whether there are specific exceptions to these rules is irrelevant. Almost no one is pushing for unrestricted abortions up to birth. The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person.
      - leereeves 5y ago
        > The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person. I wonder if you take the same position regarding fathers and child support.
        slg 5y ago
        You can't equate a purely financial obligation with all the responsibilities of being a legal guardian let alone the process of going through a pregnancy. I don't think it is fair for one parent to bear 100% of the financial responsibility for a child. I would be in support of a system that allowed a parent to relinquish any financial obligation to a child in exchange for forsaking any familial rights parenthood would traditionally grant them as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation. Until the state does that, I think expecting the father to contribute to supporting the child is fair. If someone advocates for a parent to not have an obligation to pay child support without a way for the other parent to receive the money that child support would traditionally provide them, then they aren't truly concerned about the wellbeing of the child. I therefore will ignore any anti-abortion argument they make that places the wellbeing of the unborn child above the wellbeing of the mother.
        leereeves 5y ago
        > as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation Do you mean a system that provides for the needs of poor children (based solely on financial need)? That already exists, and I'd support expanding it. Or do you mean a system that reduces the financial burden on a wealthy woman who can afford to provide for her children but simply doesn't want to? I don't see the compelling need for a system like that. Government support for children should be provided based on their financial need, not an alternative to child support based on the father's income. That's how the available funds can most improve children's welfare.

Except we don’t force this on people. We give parents the opportunity to opt out through adoption.

by slg 5y ago

Except we don’t force this on people. We give parents the opportunity to opt out through adoption.

Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. For example, older children can't be given away without their consent, fathers generally can't terminate their responsibility without the mother's consent, and it must be done in a manner that protects the child (not simply abandoned).

slg 5y ago
>Only if that's considered to be in the child's best interests. I don't have to argue against you. I can just point to the leaked draft that argues against you. It specifically cites safe haven laws which allow people to anonymously put their child up for adoption. These laws have no consideration on what the child's life would be like with their biological parents or after they become a ward of the state. The mere existence of those laws is legal precedent that it is acceptable to abdicate care over a child post-birth. Why shouldn't that be possible pre-birth?
- 5678909787 5y ago
  Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If a child has two parents and one of them drops the child of at a safe haven location and the other reports the child missing, the child will most likely be found and given to the parent who did not abandon the child. Nobody will be prosecuted, but the parent who dropped the child off will be ordered to pay child support. I think this is wrong too, but I think banning abortions is much worse because it's a more direct interference with an individual's body. One is like a a tax, money is taken from you without consent but you are mostly free to get the money however you like. The other is like a mix between forced organ harvesting and slavery where somebody else asserts direct ownership/control over your body.
  - slg 5y ago
    >Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If you can abandon a child without repercussion, how is that not directly affecting parental responsibility? Whether there are specific exceptions to these rules is irrelevant. Almost no one is pushing for unrestricted abortions up to birth. The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      > The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person. I wonder if you take the same position regarding fathers and child support.
      - slg 5y ago
        You can't equate a purely financial obligation with all the responsibilities of being a legal guardian let alone the process of going through a pregnancy. I don't think it is fair for one parent to bear 100% of the financial responsibility for a child. I would be in support of a system that allowed a parent to relinquish any financial obligation to a child in exchange for forsaking any familial rights parenthood would traditionally grant them as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation. Until the state does that, I think expecting the father to contribute to supporting the child is fair. If someone advocates for a parent to not have an obligation to pay child support without a way for the other parent to receive the money that child support would traditionally provide them, then they aren't truly concerned about the wellbeing of the child. I therefore will ignore any anti-abortion argument they make that places the wellbeing of the unborn child above the wellbeing of the mother.
        leereeves 5y ago
        > as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation Do you mean a system that provides for the needs of poor children (based solely on financial need)? That already exists, and I'd support expanding it. Or do you mean a system that reduces the financial burden on a wealthy woman who can afford to provide for her children but simply doesn't want to? I don't see the compelling need for a system like that. Government support for children should be provided based on their financial need, not an alternative to child support based on the father's income. That's how the available funds can most improve children's welfare.