> Is there any government in the world that's currently able to enforce such laws?
People talk about crypto like offshore bank accounts and cash never existed.
How does the revolutionary leader of a Sub-Saharan country who suspects the deposed leader has funds in an offshore bank account in a jurisdiction that doesn't even recognize the incoming regime get the money? Violence.
In hyper-legalistic societies like the U.S., yes, the police may sometimes have trouble finding proof that survives court scrutiny. (Though I'd guess most people aren't practicing good opsec around their crypto.) But that isn't most of the world. I don't see the Indian police having any trouble arresting and searching someone on reasonable suspicion of operating a hidden wallet.
They are not imposing restrictions on themselves. Anyone who doesn't want an abortion can just not have an abortion. They are imposing restrictions on other people. Being a majority doesn't give you the right to impose restrictions on the minority. Bodily autonomy is an individual right. I don't care if you vote 99% to 1%, that 1% still have the right to control their own body.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
Too many benefits in the US are gate kept by means testing. It adds unnecessary bureaucracy and causes needless division and animosity among the population.
That makes no sense at all. People can have consensual sex without wanting a child and they can change their mind about wanting a child after having consensual sex. I'm curious if you apply the same argument when the mother wants a child and the father does not. What should happen to the child in that situation?
The abortion debate should not have anything to do with whether a child will be born or not. The right to an abortion is part of the right to fully control your own body. That right should be absolute and inalienable unless waived voluntarily.
I'm curious if you apply the same argument when the mother wants a child and the father does not. What should happen to the child in that situation?
if it was consensual then the case is the same. both parents are responsible for the child they conceived. there is no option to change their mind later.
but if the father was raped, it gets more tricky. i haven't thought this through, but effectively the burden of whatever choice is made is carried by the mother, which means, if there is doubt then the mother should be allowed to keep the child because we should choose what has the least negative consequences for everyone involved.
but if the father can prove that he was raped then the mother should loose the right to her child.
the only remaining challenge is if the father was raped but neither wants the child. based on the above, abortion should not be allowed because the mother consented to get pregnant.
the mother could of course claim that she was raped, but assuming she doesn't, then what?
i don't know...
if you made the decision to create a new life then you have to follow through with the consequences.
if that's not what you wanted, you should have used protection.
the problem with the abortion debate is that both sides are in extreme corners and neither side is willing to approach the other.
the problem is also, trying to find a legal definition for the consensus.
what about a woman that believes to be raped, but can't prove it? should she be allowed to abort? i believe yes.
but we can only do that if we make abortion legal and the decision an entirely moral one. you can't legislate morality. with any legislation there will be corner cases with an unjust outcome.
all we can do is create better conditions for pregnant women so that they may be more comfortable carrying a baby that they otherwise would not want.
I don’t think any person should mandate any person what to do with their body. This would not have been any less wrong if it was done entirely by women. Women don't have any more right to control other women's bodies than men do.
