Politics of Abortion

[Michael]

The Politics of Legalized Abortion

I'm curious about the reasoning that people have for either opposing or supporting legalized abortion.

I suppose I have a very unconventional opinion on the issue, since I hold that "sometimes, it is legal to kill". I work on the theory that our society does accept killing, as long as it falls under particular circumstances. I'm okay with this - or rather, I have no serious objections to it.

From my perspective, the 'pro-life' (i.e. anti-abortion) position strikes me as entirely arbitrary. These people supposedly object to the killing of life, but apparently have no problem killing under other circumstances (capital punishment or war for example).

Likewise, the 'pro-choice' (pro-abortion) position strikes me as equally arbitrary. These people supposedly insist that a woman ought to have 100% control over her own body, but apparently have no problem interferring with the control of a woman's body in other circumstances (recreational drug laws or prostitution laws for example).

I consider both of these positions to be arbitrary. So what is your reasoning for either supporting or opposing legalized abortion? Are you able to dodge the hypocrisy or arbitrary label?

[partofme]

In cases in which there is a very polarized public and not a large majority on either side I think it should be up to the individual to make the decision which puts me in the pro-choice category. It isn't the most important issue to me personally but I end up being passionate about it because I get such strong and aggressive hostility from pro-lifers in discussions that it ends up getting me much more worked up than I would be otherwise.

[drgoodtrips]

I suppose I could weigh in under "pro-choice" without the arbitrariness that you mention, since I don't support drug or prostitution laws.

I generally view abortion as beneficial to society, and have no serious objections to it as long as the aborted fetus has no ability to feel pain or consciousness to desire to live. In these situations, I think it ought to be up to the woman burdened with the pregnancy.

[partofme]

I thought about inviting somebody I know on here that is a die hard pro-lifer in order to get that point of view but I decided against it because I don't think she could avoid getting too emotional. But for the sake of the argument I would expect from her and many others I think it would be said that the difference between capital punishment is it's the death of a criminal rather than a innocent baby and war is in cases of defense and national security. I don't buy these arguments but for the sake of continuing the discussion I thought I would present them.

[Michael]

...But for the sake of the argument I would expect from her and many others I think it would be said that the difference between capital punishment is it's the death of a criminal rather than a innocent baby and war is in cases of defense and national security. I don't buy these arguments but for the sake of continuing the discussion I thought I would present them.

Then they aren't "pro-life" since criminals and soldiers are live persons.

Clearly, they are "pro-fetus" only - or entirely arbitrary.

[Daktoria]

An odd dichotomy it is, pro-life advocates support the death penalty because criminals have exhibited that they don't appreciate their humanity and should be eliminated to prevent endangerment to future livelihoods. However, an atheist could claim that he's pro-life while favoring abortion by claiming that he supports the life which we know is guaranteed to exist and continue living (the mother).

Pro-choice advocacy should likewise be recognized to not be uniformly directed since it can be appreciated by feminists, libertarians, and ordinary liberals (and even authoritarians), each for their own reasons. Regarding the matter of bodily control, feminists will oppose prostitution because it's demeaning to femininity whereas libertarians will support prostitution because it's a voluntary activity. Both will approve of abortion though as a matter of personal empowerment.

My own stance? Legalize it, but tax it extremely heavily, heavily meaning here either 25% of the median income level or 25% of one's estate, whichever's higher. Adoption is always an option, and sexual promiscuity isn't exactly something that should be encouraged in reckless practice by any institution or population.

[drgoodtrips]

An odd dichotomy it is, pro-life advocates support the death penalty because criminals have exhibited that they don't appreciate their humanity and should be eliminated to prevent endangerment to future livelihoods. However, an atheist could claim that he's pro-life while favoring abortion by claiming that he supports the life which we know is guaranteed to exist and continue living (the mother).

Pro-choice advocacy should likewise be recognized to not be uniformly directed since it can be appreciated by feminists, libertarians, and ordinary liberals (and even authoritarians), each for their own reasons. Regarding the matter of bodily control, feminists will oppose prostitution because it's demeaning to femininity whereas libertarians will support prostitution because it's a voluntary activity. Both will approve of abortion though as a matter of personal empowerment.

My own stance? Legalize it, but tax it extremely heavily, heavily meaning here either 25% of the median income level or 25% of one's estate, whichever's higher. Adoption is always an option, and sexual promiscuity isn't exactly something that should be encouraged in reckless practice by any institution or population.

Why the median and not the prospective aborter? You're proposing a policy that encourages people who cannot afford to care for children to have the most children.

[dilettante]

The Politics of Legalized Abortion

I'm curious about the reasoning that people have for either opposing or supporting legalized abortion.

I suppose I have a very unconventional opinion on the issue, since I hold that "sometimes, it is legal to kill". I work on the theory that our society does accept killing, as long as it falls under particular circumstances. I'm okay with this - or rather, I have no serious objections to it.

Don't most people accept the legality of some killing? In my experience those opposed to all executions, self-defensive killing, and warfare are few and far between.


From my perspective, the 'pro-life' (i.e. anti-abortion) position strikes me as entirely arbitrary. These people supposedly object to the killing of life, but apparently have no problem killing under other circumstances (capital punishment or war for example).

Likewise, the 'pro-choice' (pro-abortion) position strikes me as equally arbitrary. These people supposedly insist that a woman ought to have 100% control over her own body, but apparently have no problem interferring with the control of a woman's body in other circumstances (recreational drug laws or prostitution laws for example).

I consider both of these positions to be arbitrary.

But this just indicates that it's the labels that are ill-suited or arbitrary, not necessarily the positions themselves. I doubt many "pro-choice" advocates ever assume the position that ALL choices should be legally supported, nor do many "pro-life" advocates claim ALL lives in ALL circumstances should be equally protected. It seems to be generally understood that these titles refer to the particular context of abortion, and within that specific context the labels are, in a broad sense, accurate.

So what is your reasoning for either supporting or opposing legalized abortion? Are you able to dodge the hypocrisy or arbitrary label?

Personally, I lean more toward the pro-life end of the (possibly mislabeled) pro-life/pro-choice spetrum. I could go for legalized abortion with severe restrictions or, alternatively (and perhaps more practically) the illegalization of abortion with several key exceptions.

My general position would be that human life is sacred and the state should protect it. Therefore only occasions of extremity or dire necessity justify the intentional taking of human life. Some abortions do arise from such occasions (and the law should acknowledge this), but the vast majority do not.

[Daktoria]

Why the median and not the prospective aborter? You're proposing a policy that encourages people who cannot afford to care for children to have the most children.

I don't see what's so justified about excusing sexual promiscuity among less well off households which only further accelerates Malthusian rat races (and I don't see how this policy can be prevented if we practice universal health care, impose minimum wages and executive salary caps, impose price ceilings on consumer goods, and impose contract limits on credit availability).

The same benchmark needs to be applied to everyone. Otherwise, we're just tolerating the breeding of more and more rats into more and more ghettos who don't care about changing their lifestyles due to an addiction to urban struggle and welfare checks.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I don't have a very strong opinion.

I lean pro-choice largely because I do not see any positive effects of prohibiting it, and I tend to agree with the reasoning that it lowers the crime rate and the welfare burden. As far as that goes, the emotional "hot buttons" for this issue-- womens' rights and the right to life-- are emotional and logical non-starters for me, and my only real concerns are logical and legal consistency between the obligations of men and women, and my admittedly-- and bitterly-- futile insistence that parents and doctors should at least have the option of culling defectives.

As a practical matter, I don't believe fetuses or newborns are "real" children with any social or moral standing until their parents-- biological or otherwise-- have taken them home and named them. As a matter of religious tradition, I don't think this ought to be done sooner than the ninth day, but I am willing to defer to the law's opinion on this matter.

I have much stronger opinions on issues such as paternity and child support. And, of course, on the inexcusable dog's breakfast that is our system of laws pertaining to adoption.

[The Drunk Girl]

I don't feel in any fashion that I should be able to tell someone what to do.

Abortion has always been a topic that I am really not clear on how I feel. If I would have gotten pregnant lets say 8-10 years ago it might have been something I would have considered. But, I don't think I would have been able to follow through with it. At the age I am at now, there is no way I would consider an abortion. I guess I am just a softy...

In situations such as rape and incest, abortion would seem like a logical explanation. In other situations I feel that if a woman wants to follow through with abortion, it is something that should be done with plenty of thought. It shouldn't be a procedure that is performed as a quick fix as a solution to the problem.

If a woman likes to be promiscuous, but doesn't want children she should be responsible enough to take the proper precautions (birth control, condoms, having a hysterectomy, etc.).

It really is a case of one really doesn't know how they will act unless they are put in the situation.

[Americano]

My opinion on abortion is it should be a woman's decision as to whether or not she wants to house a parasite in her body for nine-months and then assume the responsibility of raising a child for 18 or more years.

[Korimyr the Rat]

My opinion on abortion is it should be a woman's decision as to whether or not she wants to house a parasite in her body for nine-months and then assume the responsibility of raising a child for 18 or more years.

Do you believe men should have the same right to decide whether or not to assume the responsibilities of parenthood?

[Sucre]

It seems to be that the "pro.life"/ "pro.choice" terminology is misleading.

Pro life, but what kind of life ? What about the life of the others ? The ones who will take care of the child and raise it for many years. The over sized family ?

Pro choice is also misleading because the unborn child, obvioulsy, is not given a choice. Besides the terminology conveys some vague images of shopping in a supermarket - I want this, I don't want that etc.

As I see it, this is more a question of quality ? If this child is born, will it have a good life, will it make my life better or will it ruin everything ? Can I raise this child ?

As for the decision for or against the child, it should of course be a common decision.There is something wrong in a relationship if the woman decides to abort or on the contrary decides to carry on the pregnancy against the will of the father.

[Americano]

Do you believe men should have the same right to decide whether or not to assume the responsibilities of parenthood?

That should also be the woman's decision, which in the US I believe is legally defined as a financial responsibility without, if desired by the male, generally accepted sociological parenting participation.

[Korimyr the Rat]

In other words, "no."

That is my objection. When a woman becomes pregnant, she still retains all options to avoid parental obligations; the man in question, if he can be identified, is held hostage to her decision. Not only is this grossly inequitable-- which I am usually happy to overlook-- but it encourages irresponsible and socially destructive behaviors.

[Sucre]

Ummm ...

I am the one who wrote just before that the decision for or against the child should be a common decision. However, in case of dissenting opinions, it would be physical coercition if a woman were obliged to carry a child in her womb for nine months, give birth and then give it away to the happy father because although she did not want any child, he did.

Actually, that is the all rationale behind the prohibition of abortion : this unborn "life" does not belong to the individual woman, (but to society, her family, "God" who creates life etc.) and has the obligation to carry it to its birth, making of her nothing but a carryer.

[Lily]

Do you believe men should have the same right to decide whether or not to assume the responsibilities of parenthood?

They do. Both parties accept responsibility for all possible outcomes of having sex before engaging in sexual intercourse. The woman must carry the fetus; therefore, she alone has the decision to carry or to abort. Need she disclose to the man that if she becomes pregnant, she may choose to keep the child and he would then be responsible for financially supporting the child? I don't think so. That's a given under the law. The reverse is also true. If the man does not want to accept any of those possibilities, his decision is obvious, don't engage in sexual intercourse.

What I do believe is that both men and women must use more discretion in choosing sexual partners.

[Americano]

They do. Both parties accept responsibility for all possible outcomes of having sex before engaging in sexual intercourse. The woman must carry the fetus; therefore, she alone has the decision to carry or to abort. Need she disclose to the man that if she becomes pregnant, she may choose to keep the child and he would then be responsible for financially supporting the child? I don't think so. That's a given under the law. The reverse is also true. If the man does not want to accept any of those possibilities, his decision is obvious, don't engage in sexual intercourse.

What I do believe is that both men and women must use more discretion in choosing sexual partners.

Birth control.

[Korimyr the Rat]

They do. Both parties accept responsibility for all possible outcomes of having sex before engaging in sexual intercourse.

Funny, how many times I've heard that argument. I've just always heard it as an argument against abortion, demonstrating that banning it does not take away a woman's choice to become a parent or not.

The woman must carry the fetus; therefore, she alone has the decision to carry or to abort.

If she alone has the decision, then she alone should bear the consequences.

What I do believe is that both men and women must use more discretion in choosing sexual partners.

Yes. This much I will agree with. This is not a problem that occurs between responsible people.

[The Drunk Girl]

Ummm ...

I am the one who wrote just before that the decision for or against the child should be a common decision. However, in case of dissenting opinions, it would be physical coercition if a woman were obliged to carry a child in her womb for nine months, give birth and then give it away to the happy father because although she did not want any child, he did.

Actually, that is the all rationale behind the prohibition of abortion : this unborn "life" does not belong to the individual woman, (but to society, her family, "God" who creates life etc.) and has the obligation to carry it to its birth, making of her nothing but a carryer.

What about surrogate mothers having a child so a married couple can have one?...or a gay couple at that? In the case of a gay couple (since they both would be men), the woman might not want children, however she has the proper anatomy to. She could be willing to "sacrifice" her body for nine months out of the goodness of her heart or she could just want the money.

[Sucre]

What about surrogate mothers having a child so a married couple can have one?...or a gay couple at that? In the case of a gay couple (since they both would be men), the woman might not want children, however she has the proper anatomy to. She could be willing to "sacrifice" her body for nine months out of the goodness of her heart or she could just want the money.
Oh yes ... But that is her choice. My argument applied to the event a woman becomes pregnant against her will and because the father does not accept the abortion, she is obliged by law to carry the child ...

[Sucre]

If she alone has the decision, then she alone should bear the consequences.
She never asked to bear the weight of the decision alone. She alone carries the child which is a part only of the consequences. On the other hand you need two to have a child. The responsibility to the well-being of the child, once born, occurs at the moment of conception, not during the 9 months of pregnancy.

[drgoodtrips]

I don't see what's so justified about excusing sexual promiscuity among less well off households which only further accelerates Malthusian rat races (and I don't see how this policy can be prevented if we practice universal health care, impose minimum wages and executive salary caps, impose price ceilings on consumer goods, and impose contract limits on credit availability).

The same benchmark needs to be applied to everyone. Otherwise, we're just tolerating the breeding of more and more rats into more and more ghettos who don't care about changing their lifestyles due to an addiction to urban struggle and welfare checks.

The same benchmark could be. X percent of one's income. If youmake it X percent of the median US income, you're effectively telling the poorest 25% of society that abortion is unaffordable, the middle class that abortion will be painfully expensive, and the wealthy class that abortion is an annoyance (as it is now for them). Of course, the 25% of the estate would presumably do something about that, except that the wealthy would just go to another country and do it, so we'd be back where we started. If we make it X percent of the individual's income, that goes away. It hurts everyone the same, minus whatever you decide to do with people who have no income.

Please note that I'm not arguing for this whole policy at all. I was just wondering why you'd want to peg the cost of an abortion to the median income of the country. I'd prefer to let the market set the price of abortions.

[Daktoria]

Please note that I'm not arguing for this whole policy at all. I was just wondering why you'd want to peg the cost of an abortion to the median income of the country. I'd prefer to let the market set the price of abortions.

A pro-life position more or less, I just don't want to see the externalities of abusive consumerism lead to a slippery slope of degrading practices in a race to the bottom such as euthanasia, drug usage, and other activities which would be tolerated just because people should have the freedom to choose to do what they want.

However, I agree that the market should be the "institution" that determines how costly abortions are, but if we're going to increase the size of government for the sanctity of welfare, I don't see why abortions should be excluded from governmental policies since abortions take place as reactive excuses for reckless behavior. The purpose of the median income level here would be to administer a tax level that all citizens have influence on (as opposed to the average which would be skewed towards outliers) in order to preserve popular sovereignty (despite how I personally believe that individual autonomy is more important).

[Daktoria]

The same benchmark could be. X percent of one's income. If youmake it X percent of the median US income, you're effectively telling the poorest 25% of society that abortion is unaffordable, the middle class that abortion will be painfully expensive, and the wealthy class that abortion is an annoyance (as it is now for them). Of course, the 25% of the estate would presumably do something about that, except that the wealthy would just go to another country and do it, so we'd be back where we started. If we make it X percent of the individual's income, that goes away. It hurts everyone the same, minus whatever you decide to do with people who have no income.

Marginal propensity to consume, elasticity of demand, income effect, etc., we'd be assuming that those with less to lose are going to be equally affected as those with more to lose. For example, if I'm one partner in a two couple society and both couples decide to have abortions, then I'm going to benefit because the richer couple is going to pay more into the public good pot than I am, something that's completely counterintuitive because by agreeing to pay taxes (proportional or otherwise), I'm actually MAKING money albeit indirectly through the government's equal redistribution of wealth (and if it doesn't equally redistribute wealth, then it's existence is coercive and not justified).

Yes, the estate tax can be circumvented, but so can an income tax. The only way it wouldn't be circumvented is if the cost of traveling and getting the operation abroad costs more than at home, but if it isn't high enough in the first place, then it won't deter operations from taking place at all (which undermines the premise of using government to improve welfare as well).

Again, the market is preferential, but if we're going to use government here, abortion shouldn't be excluded from policy.

[Korimyr the Rat]

She never asked to bear the weight of the decision alone.

That is the price of having the authority of making the decision alone. Sole responsibility is the natural extension of sole authority, and if she cannot raise the child alone she has the choice of not carrying the child or not keeping it once she gives birth. If she wants to keep the child, and wants the biological father-- or any other man for that matter-- to raise the child with her, she should secure his consent and his commitment in advance.

The responsibility to the well-being of the child, once born, occurs at the moment of conception, not during the 9 months of pregnancy.

If the moment of conception does not make a woman a mother, how can you argue that the moment of conception makes a man a father? How can it be acceptable that he made his decision when he agreed to have sex, but applying the same standard to the woman is a violation of her human rights?

A woman becomes a mother when she obtains a child and decides to raise it. This is a good standard, because it connects the assumption of obligations-- legal and moral obligations-- with an act of will. She has decided that she will be a mother, and that she will be the mother of a specific child.

The same standard should be applied to men, whether the decision is that he will be the father of a specific child, or that he will be the husband of the woman and thus the father of all of her children.

A pro-life position more or less, I just don't want to see the externalities of abusive consumerism lead to a slippery slope of degrading practices in a race to the bottom such as euthanasia, drug usage, and other activities which would be tolerated just because people should have the freedom to choose to do what they want.

As unholy as I consider consumerism to be, it makes sense to me that economic forces should be major determining factors in abortion and euthanasia. Abortion, like any other form of birth control, is primarily a decision about whether or not someone wishes to have a child; that is a major financial commitment, and people should be fiscally responsible in their decision over how many children to have. Euthanasia, likewise, is a decision whether or not to continue one's own life, or the life of someone no longer capable of speaking for themselves. Pain would be the deciding factor for most people in this matter, but my primary concern is economic; I will die when I become a burden upon my family, and before I have spent my family's inheritance on hopeless medical intervention.

[Sucre]

That is the price of having the authority of making the decision alone. Sole responsibility is the natural extension of sole authority, and if she cannot raise the child alone she has the choice of not carrying the child or not keeping it once she gives birth. If she wants to keep the child, and wants the biological father-- or any other man for that matter-- to raise the child with her, she should secure his consent and his commitment in advance.

If the moment of conception does not make a woman a mother, how can you argue that the moment of conception makes a man a father? How can it be acceptable that he made his decision when he agreed to have sex, but applying the same standard to the woman is a violation of her human rights?

A woman becomes a mother when she obtains a child and decides to raise it. This is a good standard, because it connects the assumption of obligations-- legal and moral obligations-- with an act of will. She has decided that she will be a mother, and that she will be the mother of a specific child.
While I can accept the theory of sole authority/ sole responsibility, it just does not work in real life.

Of course, it the moment of conception that makes you a bilological father/mother etc. Motherhood and fatherhood do not start with financial responsibility.:shrug:

If a woman and a man decide to have a bit of fun together without commitment, I don't see why the woman alone should bear the weight and the consequences of this fun ... From the decision to bear/ keep the child to the financial AND emotional responsibility ...

It should be clear to any man chasing a woman for a one night stand (because in most cases, it is this way around) that he too is running a slight risk - even if both of them are using contraception.

Most men just don't "think" about anything when they want to sleep with a woman. They don't think at all, they just want to have sex. I do not see any advantages in supporting a mindless behaviour, letting women alone be Responsible for the outcomes.

I am here specifically adressing the issue of sex without commitment, not within the bounds of marriage or of any relationship. Other criteria apply there, it seems to me, as any relationship supposes an agreement between the partners.

Sorry to become so concrete here, but I think it is important to leave the level on lofty but unrealistic arguments and get back to real life situations.

[Lily]

Funny, how many times I've heard that argument. I've just always heard it as an argument against abortion, demonstrating that banning it does not take away a woman's choice to become a parent or not.

Banning abortion wouldn't take away the woman's choice; it would take away a woman's safe choice.




If she alone has the decision, then she alone should bear the consequences.


I'm not buying that. When any two parties enter into an agreement, they may not be on equal footing. Knowing this when they enter into the agreement does not negate the agreement; in fact, it solidifies it. Caveat Emptor.



Yes. This much I will agree with. This is not a problem that occurs between responsible people.


I wouldn't go that far. Accidents do happen and when they do, both parties are equally responsible. Responsible people take responsibility.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Of course, it the moment of conception that makes you a bilological father/mother etc. Motherhood and fatherhood do not start with financial responsibility.:shrug:

And financial responsibility only starts with biological parenthood in the case of men. Biological mothers are only financially responsible for their offspring if they choose to be; biological fathers are given no such choice.

I do not see any benefit in separating the financial responsibilities of parenthood from the other responsibilities-- on the contrary, I believe that it leads to massive societal problems, including the belief that paying one's court-ordered child support fulfills one's moral obligations as a parent. Not to mention, of course, that it also presents a real obstacle to finding an actual father to take the biological father's place.

If a woman and a man decide to have a bit of fun together without commitment, I don't see why the woman alone should bear the weight and the consequences of this fun ...

And I do not see how it is acceptable for one party to legally have all of the choices, and the other party to legally bear the responsibility of those choices.

I do not see any advantages in supporting a mindless behaviour, letting women alone be Responsible for the outcomes.

I agree with this, but I see far greater disadvantages in supporting reproduction as a coercive strategy for securing economic and other commitments from one's sexual partners.

[Sucre]

And financial responsibility only starts with biological parenthood in the case of men. Biological mothers are only financially responsible for their offspring if they choose to be; biological fathers are given no such choice.
Really ? Is this this way in the USA ?

In Europe, single women raising children belong to the most impoverished part of population. In 90% of the cases, the women raise the children, not the fathers - who in the best case send a couple of Euros/ month. Financial responsibility is a shared responsibility but in by far most cases, the emotional etc. responsibility is with the mother. This is the reality I know of.

I do not see any benefit in separating the financial responsibilities of parenthood from the other responsibilities-- on the contrary, I believe that it leads to massive societal problems, including the belief that paying one's court-ordered child support fulfills one's moral obligations as a parent. Not to mention, of course, that it also presents a real obstacle to finding an actual father to take the biological father's place.
Yes, you are right in principle. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a real world. In the real world, it is for single mothers - or fathers for that matter - a "better-than-nothing" solution to get 200 EUR from the other parent in the month to raise the child, than nothing.

And I do not see how it is acceptable for one party to legally have all of the choices, and the other party to legally bear the responsibility of those choices.
Because the burden is uneven. The party with the heaviest burden should have more choices than the party with a lesser burden : that is only fair!

I agree with this, but I see far greater disadvantages in supporting reproduction as a coercive strategy for securing economic and other commitments from one's sexual partners.
Come on ... These cases are really really rare. They exist though.

I only have contempt for these women who use treacherous means to get financial support from men. This is partly the inheritance of two thousands years of masculine dominance, making women dependant financially on men so that they developed their own "survival kit manual", and partly because there will always be some dishonest people around.

There is no easy solution to this. One solution would be to deny these women what they want - provided a treachery is proven.

But this is unfair to the child who has not chosen his/ her parents, for that matter his/her mother ...

A good example of this is Boris Becker's daughter, Anna. Boris Becker is a German tennis player, world champion and millionaire.

In February 2001, Becker acknowledged paternity of a daughter, Anna, with Angela Ermakova (below). The child was the result of a brief sexual encounter in 1999 in a closet at a London hotel. Angela Ermakova stole his sperma to make sure she would become pregnant. Becker initially denied paternity, but admitted he was the child's father after a DNA test. Since then the mother stopped working as the pension of a millionaire feeds her and the child ... In November 2007, Boris obtained joint custody of Anna after expressing concerns over how her mother was raising her.

Whatever you may think of the mother and of her behaviour, we shouldn't forget the well being of the child who has a mother and a father. Somehow it's OK that Boris was forced to aknowledge paternity. He didn't want to aknowledge the mother - and eventually got closer to the child.




http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2007/news/071119/boris_becker240.jpg

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa47/lcj2301/becker1.jpg

[Korimyr the Rat]

In Europe, single women raising children belong to the most impoverished part of population.

Same case here. But, again, women have the choice whether or not to become mothers, having the option of aborting the child or giving it up for adoption. If they don't think they can afford a child, they can refuse. If they don't want to raise a child, or support a child, they can refuse.

In 90% of the cases, the women raise the children, not the fathers - who in the best case send a couple of Euros/ month.

If men don't send child support in the US, their drivers' licenses are revoked-- which is a real hardship here-- and their paychecks may be garnished at up to 60%. Court ordered child support is typically expressed as a portion of the father's income at the time of the support order and requires court proceedings to be changed regardless

Yes, you are right in principle. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a real world. In the real world, it is for single mothers - or fathers for that matter - a "better-than-nothing" solution to get 200 EUR from the other parent in the month to raise the child, than nothing.

And in the real world, this encourages out of wedlock birth and divorce. In the real world, a child without a father-- or, at least, without two parents-- is at a terrible disadvantage in every measure of success while growing up, and this disadvantage persists throughout their life. That $200/month does very little to offset this disadvantage, and by encouraging behaviors that put children in this situation, it causes far more harm than good.

A paycheck is not a father and can not replace one. And by naming a father against his will for the purposes of extorting a paycheck, the mother is both discouraged and legally impaired in finding an actual, suitable father for her children. The absent father is an obstacle.

Because the burden is uneven. The party with the heaviest burden should have more choices than the party with a lesser burden : that is only fair!

Yes, but it is fair to neither biological "father" nor to the child to attempt to force the former to be a parent to the latter. You cannot make someone a parent at gunpoint.

Come on ... These cases are really really rare. They exist though.

I don't think they're nearly as rare as you are suggesting. At the scale of your example, they are very rare-- at the scale I live in, the difference between public assistance and steady employment above the poverty line, it is sickeningly common. And it is even more common to attempt to trap a man into a committed relationship than as a means of securing financial support.

I've experienced this directly, though thankfully I have never actually gotten a woman pregnant. Most of my male friends have experienced this in one form or another.

But this is unfair to the child who has not chosen his/ her parents, for that matter his/her mother ...

No, it isn't fair. But it is better for children that their parents have chosen them, instead of being coerced into a small portion of parenthood. It is better for a child to have no father at all than a monthly child support check from a man who denies paternity.

And it's better still that fewer children be placed in that situation.

Whatever you may think of the mother and of her behaviour, we shouldn't forget the well being of the child who has a mother and a father.

That's the thing. Until Mr. Becker did acknowledge paternity, and until he demanded joint custody, Anna Becker did not have a father. She did not have any portion of a father, except for his money, and she would not have been born into that horrid situation if not for the treachery of her mother-- and the legal system which rewarded her mother's behavior.

Somehow it's OK that Boris was forced to aknowledge paternity. He didn't want to aknowledge the mother - and eventually got closer to the child.

All's well that ends well. But I'm willing to wager that in most cases, it doesn't-- in most cases, where the biological "father" is not a famous multi-millionaire, the child support payments don't go nearly as far and the "father" would rather find ways to hide his income than attempt to fight for the custody of a child he never wanted in the first place.