To wonder if pro-life men think they should be responsible for..

[Myfamiliescleaner]

Paying child maintenance from the moment the woman is confirmed pregnant?

Since they believe it is a baby from the moment it’s created; if they aren’t with the mother; they should be responsible for paying for that child; in the US that would have to cover medical expenses too.

I think that pro life states use pregnancy to suit them.

Eg If it’s a baby from conception, why can’t women get a life insurance policy when they become pregnant ? If they miscarry, why don’t they get a pay out from the life insurance company ?

Why wouldn’t a pregnant woman get more food stamps as she’s feeding a baby too?

If she’s in a car crash and miscarries, why wouldn’t the insurance company or other baby pay for the death ?

You're chasing a red herring here OP. The real issue is women's autonomy over their own bodies, not being forced to carry and deliver a pregnancy if they don't want to, and not raising a child that they don't want. It's not about financial support (or not) from men. Abortions are safe and effective and essential health care. I'd agree with you in cases where a woman CHOOSES to keep an unexpected pregnancy that the father is expected to contribute to the costs of that pregnancy.

They are human embryos.

Whether they are "person", "people", "babies" or "citizens" is different question - calling it those words from conception is just an opinion about "how things should be".

My opinion is, it is cruel and self serving to try to name it like that for someone else's foetus. In my culture a foetus became a baby and got relevant protection from the moment the woman declared herself pregnant. Until that moment it was not-feel-well and some-weird-stomachache.

Of course. He is also responsible for bringing the child into the world and must therefore take equal responsibility for the financial and emotional costs.

I am pro life so thought I'd share my perspective.

Child maintenance is paid for the upkeep of the child, since the child isn't born yet then I wouldn't say that CM was due. However that doesn't mean they're free not to pay anything, they absolutely should be paying for (at least 50% of) everything needed in preparation for the arrival of the baby. So I sort of agree in that there are things that need to be paid before the birth and those costs should be shared.

I'm not entirely sure how the payments work in the US so can't really comment on that side of things.

I think if the woman does not want to carry the child and the man does; you should be liable for 100% of the costs.

I also think any missed payments or refusal to pay results in a mandatory vasectomy because the men clearly cannot be pro-life yet not be prepared or want to support their own child.

YANBU but we can’t expect logic or intelligence from anti-choicers so I wouldn’t get your hopes up. They don’t give a fuck about babies. They just want to control women.

An unborn baby is not a person.

Do you realise how insane that sounds?

Will they fork out the financial costs of the trauma of a woman being forced to bring a baby into the world they can’t or won’t look after? And the trauma of the child born into foster care and poverty? Who pays for that?

No more insane than forcing a woman to give birth against her will. Or willingly bringing more children into a world where their life chances are extremely poor.

If a woman is pregnant then she must give birth, that's pretty obvious. Define "life chances"?

Very good point, OP! Never thought about this but it is the logical conclusion.

No if that combination of genes couldn't develop into a fetus how is it a person ?

No she mustn’t “give birth”. Where did YY get that idea?

Children born into poverty and/or foster care have worse life chances in everything over their whole life span - risk of abuse, starvation, ill health, forming unhealthy relationships, domestic violence, poor mental health, suicide, teenage pregnancy….the list goes on. Why on earth would you want a world where more children face this?

If you’re pro-life then fair enough, you’re entitled to that opinion, but just own the fact your idealogy will lead to poorer outcomes for children.

What? You're not making any sense. Do you mean if the genetics mean the foetus isn't going to be viable to make it to full term? Even if so, they are still a person.

When does a foetus become a person?

Of course they are. When do they become a person, in your view?

It’s not. Anti choicers like to play semantics thinking they’re clever to try and get that “bomb drop” moment but really whatever we call it is irrelevant. Baby, foetus, zygote, gremlin, messiah…whatever people called it it’s not as important as the woman carrying it. Not even close. Not much more to it than that really.

See my post above re semantics. It doesn’t matter what it’s called and when. It’s all abstract anyway. It’s not as important as a woman.

Personally IMO a foetus isn’t a person. It’s a foetus. Women who want theirs probably call it baby because foetus is a bit medical. Women who don’t want it can call it whatever they want. And it’s absolutely nothing to do with anyone else.

How is it that you have absolutely no problem placing more value on one human life than another? Is it because the woman is older? Are adults more important than kids?

Because one is a fully grown woman, an actual person who’s lived in the world and is experiencing an awful life event she probably never asked for. The other isn’t even an independent being. It’s really quite simple. Adults are more important then foetuses. Which are not “kids”.

Forcing the actual living person to do something harrowing to “save” a foetus who would highly likely lead a miserable life if they entered a world were they can’t be taken care of, is incomprehensibly immoral and actually evil IMO.

How can you possibly view them the same?

But seeing as you see them as a child, I’ll ask this: a gunman is pointing a gun at the head of a 3yo child. They’re also pointing a gun at an embryo. Given the choice who would you have him shoot - and don’t say neither. He’s shooting one, you have to decide who’s more important

By that logic you support that if a man decides he doesn't want the baby he shouldn't be liable for any of the costs of the child.
Should women with children receiving benefits have forced hysterectomies?

This doesn’t make sense because maintenance isn’t for women it’s for children.

One is independent human being.
The second is technically a parasite - unable to live on their own, taking it's sustainance from the host.

If the woman wants to host it, she declares it a baby. If not, she declares it a stomach ache and gets a cure.

@Peony1897 may I introduce you to the concept of the irresponsible ejaculator? https://x.com/designmom/status/1040363431893725184.