Interesting post. Is the generous endowment policy explicitly linked to the anti-abortion policy? It’s a bit strange if it is. We won’t let you abort your first child but we will only help you pay for your later children.
In relation to the potential overturning of Roe v Wade, you seem to be aware that:
- this does not mean that abortion becomes illegal
- it does mean that each US state can determine it’s own abortion laws.
By the way, I know that may have sounded condescending when you clearly already knew - rest assured it’s not you I’m talking down to. (Yes that’s the sound of me sinking to their level).
The issues raised by your post are far more interesting and possibly more difficult than the moral or legal question. As a policy matter, if the state has severe restrictions on abortion, should it also have generous means-tested child support?
Most Republicans would say no. They say no either because:
- they would rather have lower taxes than help the poor, or
- they believe child support encourages single motherhood, and fatherlessness is one of the leading indicators of poverty and other bad outcomes later in life, and on that basis they believe that such welfare may actually be counterproductive, ie it makes poverty worse not better.
I used to be pretty sure that Republicans were really all about the first reason. But there do seem to be some pretty good stats and studies that could support the latter argument. Thomas Sowell wrote on of them, I think. I’m not convinced yet, just open-minded.
Clearly, single parenthood is, on average, not as good for the child as having two parents living with the child in a stable relationship. (Cue the shock and horror from the lefties on this forum). Single parenthood should not be encouraged.
However, does that justify not providing child support to single parent families? Doesn’t that make the problem worse for the child? I still lean strongly towards the view that is the answer is “no” and “yes” respectively. Maybe the better solution is to design the payments in such a way as to not make it attractive for women to voluntarily enter single motherhood - for example by not counting the some or all of the fathers’ income and assets in the means test (so she doesn’t lose the child support if the father is supporting the child). I’m sure there are better ideas than that.
Now, should freely accessible abortion form part of that policy? Maybe, but I would say that freely accessible abortion should only be available early in the pregnancy - not sure exactly when the cut off should be, but maybe it could be just before the foetus develops the capacity to feel pain.
As I said, this is an interesting policy topic. What is best for society overall? What is best for the mother? What is best for the child? How do we encourage two parent families without screwing children of single parent families? How do we encourage (or force) fathers to support and be there for their children?
This is the intelligent way to argue for abortion. The practicalities and overall policy and societal impact. As soon as abortion is framed as primarily a moral issue or as an issue of “women’s rights”, pro choice advocates are choosing to argue their weakest point, and on the logic of rights and morals, they lose. In my view, the Democrats and people like Manny, Valvegear, Aaron and RTT_Rules are idiots to frame their arguments in terms of womens rights. Not because women don’t have rights to bodily self determination, but because the woman’s body is not the only body, not the only person
, affected by abortion. The baby is affected - killed - in the process. It’s hard to argue that being killed is fair, especially given that the baby is there because of the actions of two adults who just wanted a bit of fun.
It’s particularly stupid when they try to argue (as they have) that abortion should be freely available the whole nine months. They have to argue that, because if they base their argument on womens rights, they lose if they acknowledge that human life begins before birth, because that means they seek the right to kill another human life.
So there’s a tip for those dopey bustards.
They’re so bad at arguing their position that an evil patriarchal 15th century anti abortionist who just wants more kids born so he can rape them (but that’s not a slur, right RTT_Rules?) has to be the one to tell them how to argue convincingly in favour of freely available abortion.