If you are going to force women to give birth, you damn well better plan for and support with your votes a robust social support system for them and their children. Lengthy maternity leave, income assistance/UBI, job placement, and oh yeah - pay for their education through college.
These are all factors that may lead responsible prospective parents to choose abortion. If you are going for force women to give birth, you are now responsible for ensuring they have everything they could need to raise that child.
Nobody is forcing the woman to keep the baby. If the woman wants to, they can give the baby up for adoption, at which point the state steps in to provide care for the child.
If the woman chooses to keep the baby, they are subject to means testing for any assistance like anyone else.
UBI
I agree with UBI (my personal preferred structure is a Negative Income Tax, which is similar), but that’s completely separate from taking care of yourself and dependents.
The difference is the government should ensure everyone has access to what they need, but it shouldn’t ensure the everyone is using what they need. So I’m against things like universal healthcare because whether to pay for insurance should be an individual decision, but something like Medicare for all is acceptable because it preserves that choice. Likewise for free college, though I’m absolutely supportive of reforming K-12 schools so kids have better prospects after high school (e.g. spend the last two years in some kind of apprenticeship program). I’m also vehemently against federal student loans, but I’m in favor of grants for students (collecting payments is morally incompatible with maintaining a monopoly on force).
So I think you’ll find I’m not a conservative, at least not in the sense most people seem to mean. I’m in favor of radical individual freedoms (i.e. drug legalization/decriminalization beyond marijuana), to the point where victimless crimes should not exist (i.e. porn, gambling, prostitution, etc should never be banned, but may be restricted somewhat to prevent harm).
at which point the state steps in to provide care for the child.
Again a woefully underfunded current circumstance. But also:
Nobody is forcing the woman to keep the baby. If the woman wants to,
Ah, so we’ll only force her to HAVE the baby, then endure the guilt, shame, and pain of having her newborn (who she has at that point carried for nine months and bonded with) taken from her for adoption.
Getting closer and closer to Gilead the further the conversation goes.
My suggestion would be that I’m going to drop out of this discussion right about here.
Yes, if a woman choose not to get an abortion in the first half of her pregnancy, we then need to respect the rights of the fetus. That’s about as fair if a balance (slanted toward the woman’s rights) as possible. And she’d only be obligated to carry the baby until it can be safely delivered, not necessarily to full term.
In short, for the first half of the pregnancy, she has complete freedom to choose. For the second half, the fetus gets protection. That seems fair.
If you are going to force women to give birth, you damn well better plan for and support with your votes a robust social support system for them and their children. Lengthy maternity leave, income assistance/UBI, job placement, and oh yeah - pay for their education through college.
These are all factors that may lead responsible prospective parents to choose abortion. If you are going for force women to give birth, you are now responsible for ensuring they have everything they could need to raise that child.
Nobody is forcing the woman to keep the baby. If the woman wants to, they can give the baby up for adoption, at which point the state steps in to provide care for the child.
If the woman chooses to keep the baby, they are subject to means testing for any assistance like anyone else.
I agree with UBI (my personal preferred structure is a Negative Income Tax, which is similar), but that’s completely separate from taking care of yourself and dependents.
The difference is the government should ensure everyone has access to what they need, but it shouldn’t ensure the everyone is using what they need. So I’m against things like universal healthcare because whether to pay for insurance should be an individual decision, but something like Medicare for all is acceptable because it preserves that choice. Likewise for free college, though I’m absolutely supportive of reforming K-12 schools so kids have better prospects after high school (e.g. spend the last two years in some kind of apprenticeship program). I’m also vehemently against federal student loans, but I’m in favor of grants for students (collecting payments is morally incompatible with maintaining a monopoly on force).
So I think you’ll find I’m not a conservative, at least not in the sense most people seem to mean. I’m in favor of radical individual freedoms (i.e. drug legalization/decriminalization beyond marijuana), to the point where victimless crimes should not exist (i.e. porn, gambling, prostitution, etc should never be banned, but may be restricted somewhat to prevent harm).
Again a woefully underfunded current circumstance. But also:
Ah, so we’ll only force her to HAVE the baby, then endure the guilt, shame, and pain of having her newborn (who she has at that point carried for nine months and bonded with) taken from her for adoption.
Getting closer and closer to Gilead the further the conversation goes.
My suggestion would be that I’m going to drop out of this discussion right about here.
Yes, if a woman choose not to get an abortion in the first half of her pregnancy, we then need to respect the rights of the fetus. That’s about as fair if a balance (slanted toward the woman’s rights) as possible. And she’d only be obligated to carry the baby until it can be safely delivered, not necessarily to full term.
In short, for the first half of the pregnancy, she has complete freedom to choose. For the second half, the fetus gets protection. That seems fair.