Plekhanov wrote:zircon wrote:Plekhanov wrote:
She'd only be 'as much of an "irresponsible scum bag"' if she simply abandoned the baby after it was born.
By either aborting or taking it upon herself to have the child and raise it as best she can the mother is taking responsibility, even giving the baby up for adoption is taking responsibility in a way as atleast doing so ensures that the baby has a good chance of being well looked after.
This is where my opinions clash with yours, no matter how good the intentions are it is not responsible to raise a child in a bad household.
Children should only be raised in an environment that ensures that they can grow up safe and sound with a proper education.
Before anyone asks what i consider a bad household i'll say that i think of it in economic terms, living in a dumpster is not a good environment.
And roughly what proportion of women who experience unplanned pregnancies with reluctant fathers live in dumpsters or would do subsequently if the father is required to pay child support?
The dumpster is an exaggeration but there are plenty of household situations which are not proper living areas.
As for the statistics, i have no idea, but it is also not what i was trying to say.
I guess my original argument boils down to the state that if you can't reason an abortion in order to avoid a failed household, you walk out trying to force an abortion with economic pressure.
And you know that single parent households will inevitably fail do you? How exactly do you figure that men being able to arbitrarily cut off their own offspring will decrease the number of ‘failed households’?
It's not a matter of inevitably failing, single moms with a good economy would have no problem properly caring for a child.
The point was that the resulting offspring from a poor home will in most cases also do worse in their adult lives. It should be in the interest of the parents to give their children as much of a competitive edge as possible.
As for the last point, i don't know if it would, but at least it would be a clear message rather then stalling the law, dissapearing from sight or making their life hell just out of spite.
As for what to do if even that doesn't work and you still wind up with a kid on the street, that i don't know.
Do you really not see how allowing men to refuse child support would increase the number of ‘kids on the street’?
I was going to say economic pressure would compel the women to reconsider the child, but as Spin Echo points out i'm trying to hard to apply the rules of economics to pregnancy.
As for giving the child up for adoption, that would work if there wasn't already a surplus amount of children available.
You couldn’t be more wrong, not only are the populations of most western nations failing to replace themselves but the demand for babies to adopt far exceeds supply, hence the practice of western couples paying large sums of money to adopt children from poorer nations.
Yeah, seems i was a bit wrong there
Foster Care
It doesn't seem to be overflowing with children but they're still there.
