Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

Maybe shitty grandparents who didn't teach their kids to be responsible for themselves...That was THEIR responsibility, to teach their kids to stand on there own two feet and not mooch off Mommy and Daddy...

Which blows Dennis's little scheme right out of the water...NO one is compelled nor obligated to share their 500 FREE dollars...

 

LOL! "allow themselves to be impregnated" Hilarious....don't know much about how women's innards work, do ya?

Yet you don't mind women IRRESPONBSIBLY mooching off their parents....go figure...

 

Renee said: ↑
Perhaps..or rape or incest or a moments irresponsible passion..whatever it is, the ZEF is not wanted and can’t be cared for the way the woman would

W H O TF said that?

NO one but you...

That makes no sense…

What about that?

 

The only responsibility that counts here is legal responsibility.

There is no legitimacy in assuming an extended family is living together. That's you having a dream. And, it isn't "lazy" to go to where you can find work and/or education and have reaonable transportation.

I find it shocking that you would suggest that laws should assume that there are grandparents capable of helping when in our highly mobile society we have parents who don't even have a spouse let alone the support team you want to assume exists.

If you want to know why women have abortions you have to ask them. In such studies ability to support themselves while giving adequate care to a baby is signfiicant. The load on a single parent in our society is enormous.

 

Hey, it takes two to tango; what about the man? Is it okay that he goes around spreading his seed with no responsibility?

 

Amen.

And, even if the guy ends up having to split his income, there is no reason to assume the women is in a position to take on the load of being a single parent.

And, telling here "tough luck" isn't going to reduce the abortion rate.

 

Actually.... .if she gives his name on the birth certificate the father could well be supposed to share a portion of his total income with the mother.

 

Good points.

One would have to look at the full support situation to really have an idea what that specific amount might do.

It would certainly help, but $500/month is a fraction of what daycare would be around here. And, especially for a single parent household the additional work load of adding a child would be severe.

Would that, added to what's available today, cause large numbers of women to change their decisions? I just don't know.

But, I do like that this suggestion at least aims at the reasons women say they choose abortion.

And, here in the US, even basic healthcare is a tough get.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Maybe shitty grandparents who didn't teach their kids to be responsible for themselves...That was THEIR responsibility, to teach their kids to stand on there own two feet and not mooch off Mommy and Daddy...


Which blows Dennis's little scheme right out of the water...NO one is compelled nor obligated to share their 500 FREE dollars...

I was referring to GRANDPARENTS...not the "dad".....AND , in the US, his name doesn't have to be on the birth certificate...if the kid has his DNA, HE PAYS and he doesn't get handed a free 500 bucks to do it....

 

Quite true.

However "blood from turnips" comes to mind. At the mid to lower income ranges, especially with teens, I really don't know how a potential single parent woman could count on income from some kid who just bugged out - and who is likley to go on to other financial responsibilities.

 

True... but putting eighteen billion dollars annually into the economy of Canada would cause a boom up here and create so many jobs that there could turn out to be a shortage of workers.

Our Canadian economy seems to me to have been deliberately sabotaged back in 1974. It may have been done for sincere reasons...... perhaps to save the environment by slowing down the economy. It was still a really bad idea though in my opinion.

A big part of the problem was OPEC oil prices going up but our central banks handled the whole thing in a terrible manner because a rise in interest rates.......... is in itself inflationary and increases the costs of everything that we produce.

The Public-Debt Problem



If this surge in the national debt of Canada had not been arranged it would
have been almost impossible to do the same thing to American taxpayers.
I am sure that considerable pressure was put on Prime Minister Pierre E. Trudeau
to go along with this.




The Bank of Canada Must Finance our Country, Debt-Free
on Wednesday, 01 March 1995. Posted in In This Age of Plenty (book)

If you want to understand why so many very wealthy people favour deliberately dampening the economy you need to research the influential ideas of Thomas Robert Malthus.

 

Sure, but they didn't - so they can now do the hard yards they should have done earlier.

And sure again, no one is compelled to share. But what kind of parent doesn't .. with their own children?

 

So you're saying every woman who conceives is raped? Because for the man to be 'blamed' that's what it would take.

 

1) It's not a 'dream', it's what works. Don't like it, don't do it - then watch your loved ones pay the price for your refusal.

2) The law shouldn't assume anything. The law should simply provide a base line, and leave it up to individuals to make that work for them, or let their life fall apart due to lack of responsibility (for self and family). As for people not having family, there are very few instances where that's a genuine act of god. Almost all cases of 'no family' in the West are a result of choice - therefore they should not factor in a welfare scenario. Paying people who make choices then change their mind as soon as consequences visit, is outrageously immoral.

3) I know why women (who weren't raped) have abortions. They don't want the baby they're carrying. Or rather, they wanted it enough to do the ONE THING you need to do to acquire a baby, then changed their mind as soon as the consequences visited. And yes, the load on single parents is enormous. Two of my closest friends have been sole parents for many years (both widowed), and it's extremely difficult. That's why no sane person would ever become a single parent by choice - and unless your partner dies, you are there by choice.

 

This sounds like the problem with supply side economics that the US has struggled with for a few decades now.

The notion that the way to spur the economy is to ensure that the rich are getting richer (by cutting taxes for the wealthy and large corporations who often don't even pay corporate taxes anymore) does't work as has been proven for so long. Ask Kansas in particular - who took a huge bet on supply side economics.

So besides the number of abortions that might be prevented, putting money in the hands of people who seriously need it and who thus spend it has an economic upside as well.

 

You keep assuming there are "family" who solve the problem. But, it's not solving the problem today, so claims that it will in the future don't make sense.

This is what is happening today. People find that they can't afford kids, so the abortion numbers stay where they are.

Is THAT the result you are hopign for?

Every birth control method has a failure rate.

And, "because they don't want it" is a silly answer. It says nothing about the reason they don't want it.

One must assume that education before the fact, availability of prophelaxis, and improving the outlook for single mothers can have an affect.

 

The kind who believe their adult children should stand on their own two feet....

The whole premise of the thread is ridiculous...why argue over imaginary money and a scheme that will never happen..

 

I'm not trying to solve your nation's problems, I'm stating the reality of problem avoidance.

If you don't like the reality, and prefer not to follow the 'rules of responsibility', then expect trouble.

 

I don't see what it is about abortion that you have avoided.

And, I do think it's worthwhile to find ways to reduce the number of abortions without using harsher laws against women. Everyone in America is interested in a lower abortion rate. And, the majority is opposed to the laws we have against women.

Plus, let's note that Canada has a lower abortion rate with NO laws against abortion - with abortion paid by Canadian tax dollars. So, if you are interested in a miimalist approach, maybe you should concider taking abortion laws off the books.

 

Question is how are you paying for yours. Medicade or ACA? Planned Parenthood, or a "free" clinic?

 

No, I'm not saying that, you are. Try not to take my posts out of context.

 

"""let's note that Canada has a lower abortion rate with NO laws against abortion - with abortion paid by Canadian tax dollars"""

 

The "Rules of Responsibility" LOL! As written by crank....hilarious...all bow down...

Do you have a rule of Responsibility about not mooching off your parents?

 

Mooching off parents to save the life of their grandchild......
is a totally different situation than mooching off parents to support a drug addiction.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
The "Rules of Responsibility" LOL! As written by crank....hilarious...all bow down...

Do you have a rule of Responsibility about not mooching off your parents?

A mooch is a mooch.

Parents should've given their kids a Big Lesson in not doing things you can't afford.