Author Topic: Alabama just passed a near-total abortion ban; No exceptions for rape/incest  (Read 9129 times)

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?
Top 5 positions: ELF GCM.NT/GCM.WT.B PIF EFR.DB TII.V


Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3047
"Life starts at conception. It's tantamount to abortion for proponents of these bills."

So basically you are openly supporting killing life?

Cardboard

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2882
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?

Your question asked if the man should pay child support at inception. That was my answer.

There are no medical bills at conception. There is no noticeable change in the food eaten or any additional costs. I wasn't like "wow, you're eating more than me! are you pregnant???"

Should the man help pay for her healthcare costs during pregnancy? In my opinion, yes.

There is an action (pregnancy) and as a result that he is is partially responsible for and should help pay.
Paul

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?

Your question asked if the man should pay child support at inception. That was my answer.

There are no medical bills at conception. There is no noticeable change in the food eaten or any additional costs. I wasn't like "wow, you're eating more than me! are you pregnant???"

Should the man help pay for her healthcare costs during pregnancy? In my opinion, yes.

There is an action (pregnancy) and as a result that he is is partially responsible for and should help pay.

So you think the amount of support a father provides should be legislated like these anti-choice laws?
Top 5 positions: ELF GCM.NT/GCM.WT.B PIF EFR.DB TII.V

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2882
Iím curious if people who are pro these new abortion laws think that child support should also begin at conception and if the fathers withhold payment what the punishment should be?

I can't say I agree with a total abortion ban but I'll answer it in a general sense.

What do you mean by "child support"? If you mean payment due to increased financial costs, I'll say no. I've had a couple of kids now and I'll say the financial cost at conception is nothing.

Now, if you mean "child support" as if the man should do more for the woman while pregnant then, yes, it should start at conception (or earlier!). 

Of course, ideally, the two people would be married before they had a child (yes, yes, I know I'm in the Dark Ages!). And part of the agreement is that the husband should support the wife more during pregnancy.

We do not live in an ideal world.

Well immediately after conception, the woman is eating for two. There are lots of costs associated with doctors and other pre-natal care. If that woman is working and the she has health conditions which make carrying a baby to term dangerous, she might lose income and have bed rest. Obviously those costs could also increase substantially after birth.

Should we legislate the amount of financial support a man has to provide for a baby from birth too?

Your question asked if the man should pay child support at inception. That was my answer.

There are no medical bills at conception. There is no noticeable change in the food eaten or any additional costs. I wasn't like "wow, you're eating more than me! are you pregnant???"

Should the man help pay for her healthcare costs during pregnancy? In my opinion, yes.

There is an action (pregnancy) and as a result that he is is partially responsible for and should help pay.

So you think the amount of support a father provides should be legislated like these anti-choice laws?

What do you mean by "legislated like these anti-choice laws?"
Paul

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
Should there be legislation for expectant fathers that they have to set money aside for the care of their unborn children. Surely, if the proponents of these bills care about the lives of these unborn babies, and their caring doesnít end once that child is born.
Top 5 positions: ELF GCM.NT/GCM.WT.B PIF EFR.DB TII.V

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2882
Should there be legislation for expectant fathers that they have to set money aside for the care of their unborn children. Surely, if the proponents of these bills care about the lives of these unborn babies, and their caring doesnít end once that child is born.

I'll say "yes" with the understanding that I might change once I see where you're trying to go. ;)
Paul

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
Should there be legislation for expectant fathers that they have to set money aside for the care of their unborn children. Surely, if the proponents of these bills care about the lives of these unborn babies, and their caring doesnít end once that child is born.

I'll say "yes" with the understanding that I might change once I see where you're trying to go. ;)

So we have to decide how much support should be paid.

Then what is the punishment is for not providing that support? There are already lots of fathers who donít provide child support.
Top 5 positions: ELF GCM.NT/GCM.WT.B PIF EFR.DB TII.V

stahleyp

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2882
Should there be legislation for expectant fathers that they have to set money aside for the care of their unborn children. Surely, if the proponents of these bills care about the lives of these unborn babies, and their caring doesnít end once that child is born.

I'll say "yes" with the understanding that I might change once I see where you're trying to go. ;)

So we have to decide how much support should be paid.

Then what is the punishment is for not providing that support? There are already lots of fathers who donít provide child support.

I think at least 50% of the associated costs should be paid. Possibly more since the women is the one doing the work.

As far as punishment goes, wage garnishment is probably the best choice. Jail wouldn't help the woman but may make men honor their obligations.
Paul

SafetyinNumbers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
If they are unemployed or have no wages per se?
Top 5 positions: ELF GCM.NT/GCM.WT.B PIF EFR.DB TII.V