[5678909787]

Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility. If a child has two parents and one of them drops the child of at a safe haven location and the other reports the child missing, the child will most likely be found and given to the parent who did not abandon the child. Nobody will be prosecuted, but the parent who dropped the child off will be ordered to pay child support.

I think this is wrong too, but I think banning abortions is much worse because it's a more direct interference with an individual's body. One is like a a tax, money is taken from you without consent but you are mostly free to get the money however you like. The other is like a mix between forced organ harvesting and slavery where somebody else asserts direct ownership/control over your body.

[slg]

>Safe haven laws don't do that. They just provide an exception to child abandonment laws. They don't directly affect parental responsibility.

If you can abandon a child without repercussion, how is that not directly affecting parental responsibility?

Whether there are specific exceptions to these rules is irrelevant. Almost no one is pushing for unrestricted abortions up to birth. The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person.

[5678909787]

The rule is just that it's not a crime to leave a child in that location. It doesn't legally affect parental responsibility or anything else outside of criminal law.

I'm 100% in favour of unrestricted abortions up to birth. Bodily autonomy doesn't have a time-limit and it doesn't suddenly become okay for another person to decide what someone can do with their body just because they waited past a particular deadline.

[leereeves]

> The analog is that we give people potential outs so they are not forced to be responsible for another person.

I wonder if you take the same position regarding fathers and child support.

[slg]

You can't equate a purely financial obligation with all the responsibilities of being a legal guardian let alone the process of going through a pregnancy.

I don't think it is fair for one parent to bear 100% of the financial responsibility for a child. I would be in support of a system that allowed a parent to relinquish any financial obligation to a child in exchange for forsaking any familial rights parenthood would traditionally grant them as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation. Until the state does that, I think expecting the father to contribute to supporting the child is fair.

If someone advocates for a parent to not have an obligation to pay child support without a way for the other parent to receive the money that child support would traditionally provide them, then they aren't truly concerned about the wellbeing of the child. I therefore will ignore any anti-abortion argument they make that places the wellbeing of the unborn child above the wellbeing of the mother.

[leereeves]

> as long as the state would step in and assume that financial obligation

Do you mean a system that provides for the needs of poor children (based solely on financial need)? That already exists, and I'd support expanding it.

Or do you mean a system that reduces the financial burden on a wealthy woman who can afford to provide for her children but simply doesn't want to? I don't see the compelling need for a system like that.

Government support for children should be provided based on their financial need, not an alternative to child support based on the father's income. That's how the available funds can most improve children's welfare.

[slg]

Neither.

During pregnancy a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy to avoid obligation to the child. The rights of the woman supersede the rights of both the child and the father because it is her body that needs to go through pregnancy.

After the birth the parental rights should be equal. Both parents should be able to renounce their obligation to the child. In this situation, the state should step in and assume that responsibility. That applies to both guardianship and financial obligation. The state will only take over guardianship if both parents give up their obligation. The state will step in financially if one parent gives up their obligation.

It is acceptable to put limited restrictions on these such as establishing a reasonable cutoff for abortions as Roe v. Wade allows or the short windows of time that safe haven laws usually establish. What is important is that the parents at least have a choice at some point in the process. Once the parents make that decision, I am fine with them being held to it.

[leereeves]

> The state will step in financially if one parent gives up their obligation.

Always? Like, if two millionaires have a child and one gives up their obligation, the government would pay child support to the other millionaire parent?

I couldn't support that. I think whether the state steps in should be based on the child's financial need, not the number of responsible parents.