What's the difference between a person who can't support their baby because they suddenly lost their job and someone who can't support their baby because they were always impoverished?Doug said:Well, if they can't afford to support a baby, should they be allowed to keep a baby? Whilst I generally think the poor shouldn't be left to die on the streets like the USA's health system would require, I don't see why the poor should be supported by everyone else went they have more children than their life can afford to keep. Ok, if they suddenly lose their job, its a different story, but thats a detail that would have to be hammered out.
I don't see the point in throwing an intended idea around that's morally innavigable. As I said before: do you need a license to have unprotected sex, or just to give birth? Or would it be that, if you're a woman who isn't licensed to have a baby, you would be forced by law to take birth control? So now there's also the gender double-standard in play; if the license-law is broken, do you prosecute the woman who gave birth or the man who impregnated her? What happens to the baby - is it necessarily better off in a foster home?Who said anything about aborting the baby? For starters, the poll simply states the intended idea, not its implementation. Adoption or some form of temporary birth control could achieve the same effect.
Apologies if you're just prodding out of curiosity and I'm talking like I'm sitting on a really high horse right now. It's hard not to on the internet. xP