November 10, 2013

"Men Should Pay for Maternity Care Because BABIES."

Headline at DoubleX about babies, written in babytalk. Here's the argument:
The long-term prosperity of the U.S. depends on healthy citizens, men supply the sperm, it’s just a genetic lottery that made you a man and not a woman, and think of your mother who had to bear you!

But even if you don’t care at all about the women bearing the children, you should care about live human babies that are going to be born regardless of whether their mothers get adequate prenatal care. And really, really bad things happen to babies whose mothers don’t get adequate prenatal care. 
At the point when you purchase insurance, the individual customer would like only to insure for things that are possible. Everyone at the point of purchase knows whether they are male and thus naturally and absolutely immune to the risk of pregnancy. So why can't they get a price based on what they need to insure? The argument at the link is coherent only if you concede that we are no longer talking about insurance. We're talking about taxation to pay for a welfare benefit. 

If we weren't so deeply embroiled in Obamacare, it might be interesting to talk about whether the government should subsidize all maternity care. To do so would nudge women away from abortion. Perhaps the government could use the opportunity to gather information about the quality of the parenting that is likely to ensue and to take stronger actions to protect the "long-term prosperity of the U.S."

Remember, women's bodies are the portals through which all future generations of humanity must enter the scene. Old-school feminism took umbrage at thinking about women as containers of babies, but today's feminists are more like old-fashioned wives, and the message is: Pay the bills!

79 comments:

The Drill SGT said...

The long-term prosperity of the U.S. depends on healthy citizens, men supply the sperm, it’s just a genetic lottery that made you a man and not a woman, and think of your mother who had to bear you!

Doesn't that theory lead directly to outlawing abortion?

SGT Ted said...

Modern women seem to view men as sperm providing financial slaves.

SGT Ted said...

The "think of mom" guilt trip is so very precious.

The Drill SGT said...

Obamacare is not, of course, insurance. It is health care prepayment.

Real insurance features risk based pricing, not community averaging. Hence why we charge teenage boys more for auto insurance, because they have more accidents.

yet we don't charge teenage girls (or 20 something females) more for healthcare, yet they consume a lot more than their male peers at any age...

SGT Ted said...

How is it that the modern "GRRRRRL power, we don't need no man" feminist thinks that men that they don't know should be obligated to pay for what women decide to do with their vagina?

The article assumes sexual supremacy of females.

Funny how feminists claiming they only want equality, want to obligate and relegate men into the 1950s style of breadwinner so she can relax and have babies and not pay for it all herself.

People like this need to be put in their place. They are sexist pigs and female supremacists. They aren't for equality.

Tarrou said...

"A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.....until she wants money".

Fixed that for you, Irina Dunn.

Bob Ellison said...

All of the resources and money in the world are community-owned. It's only natural and moral to require sharing them. We allow a degree of inequality in order to motivate people, but that inequality must be controlled and tempered, especially when it gets too big.

Tank said...

Women who can't afford their own maternity costs, and don't have a husband who can, are not the people we should encourage to have babies.

Rocket science.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

We had a city council candidate in this last week's election who ran on a platform of universal day care, the universe being limited to the city limits of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Jefferson Smith finished 13th for 9 seats, winning 579 first place votes and picking up 123 transfer ballots. That included 9 transfer votes from the 14th place finisher Leslie Logan, the closeted token Republican candidate.

Henry said...

Never let a money tree go to waste.

Henry said...

@Left Bank of the Charles - Of course new Boston mayor Marty Walsh promised universal pre-K and won handily.

Levi Starks said...

Being born a girl equals drawing the genetic short straw....
How does it feel to be beaten with a short straw?

Inga said...

The Drill SGT. said.....
"Obamacare is not, of course, insurance. It is health care prepayment."

11/10/13, 7:50 AM
-----------------------------------
Michael K said....

"They don't understand insurance, like so much else of economics. The principle of insurance is based on time. I pay my premiums on my life insurance and 20 or 50 years later, my heirs collect the policy benefit, which may equal my premiums all those years.

The insurance company bet I would live long enough for them to invest my premiums and get enough return to make a profit even though the payout was as much as the total paid in.

Health insurance is different. There is no time factor. Premiums come in and benefits go out in a short cycle; far too short to earn investment returns. What we have had for 50 years is pre-paid care. The premium goes in and the payout goes out in the same cycle ."

10/27/13, 7:07 PM

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/10/embarrassingly-lame-joke-jennifer.html
-------------------------------------
It appears Michael K, is of the opinion that all health insurance was pre paid health care, long before the advent of Obamacare.

Gahrie said...

All of the resources and money in the world are community-owned

Bullshit.

When will you commies finally get it through your head...communism is a failure.

Edward Lunny said...

" To do so would nudge women away from abortion. " Based upon what evidence or metric Professor ? From what I've seen, abortion is about convenience and gross stupidity. If folks won't get birth control available at any corner pharmacy , if they won't take the simplest of preventative measures. What on earth makes you think that these people are suitable as parents or, that these same folks would choose to become parents. There are already alternate avenues to abortion, avenues that cost nothing ; yet we kill roughly 800k children annually. The deplorable abuse of welfare isn't because pregnancy preventatives and abortion alternatives aren't available, it's because those pregnancies are profitable to those folks.

El Pollo Raylan said...

In other words, ObamaCare promotes cuckoldry...

No wonder men are suspicious.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Many men have an innate or learned capacity to husband families of their own making. Why undermine this by subsidizing the splooge stooges?

Or perhaps you don't see it as undermining?

Will Richardson said...

@ Bob Ellison

"All of the resources and money in the world are community-owned. It's only natural and moral to require sharing them."

So you want to legislate your version of morality by granting the state power to force productive citizens to give up the fruits of their labor to less productive and idle citizens. If a private citizen tried that it would be considered theft. “Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?”

Edward Lunny said...

" When will you commies finally get it through your head...communism is a failure." When enough of them come to an unexpected and untimely end, preferably violently.

" Bob Ellison said..." Rubbish, the "fair share" of that which you have not and will not earn is nothing. When you and your ilk give your earnings to the government and ask then for your share back I'll give credence to the baloney you have posted. So long as you folks continue to take exemptions, deductions, etc when you file your taxes your opinions and beliefs are rubbish. I'll note that I presume that you do pay and file taxes, because so many whom posit the same rubbish as you, don't and won't earn and do everything that they can to avoid paying a god damned dime.

Michael K said...

Thanks, Inga.

"It appears Michael K, is of the opinion that all health insurance was pre paid health care, long before the advent of Obamacare."

It has been since about 1965. It's gotten worse since the 1980s and, if you had read any of the things I have written about it, you would understand why Obamacare will be fatal to the system.

I do appreciate that you remember what I have said.

Henry said...

We're starting to see a lot of this kind of argument: The conflation of the funding mechanism with the outcome.

The funding mechanism is perverse and regressive and progressives have made themselves its most earnest defenders.

Edward Lunny said...

" How is it that the modern "GRRRRRL power, we don't need no man"" They don't, they need just his money. Because they cannot, or will not, or do not earn what he does. Earn, it's a term feminists aren't familiar with. Just like the same ignorance about that word that is shown by all of the other lib collectivists. None of them have the faintest idea as to what it means to earn. Bunch of self righteous, overly self important air wasting leeches.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Perhaps the modern woman has a shallow impression of fatherhood. Perhaps they believe that mens' biological imperative is just to disseminate like kind as widely as possible. This is most unfortunate and shows the depth of the problem.

Paul said...

So, does female insurance cover prostate exams? Cancer of the prostate (well Hillary might need it.)

I fell insurance should only cover CATASTROPHIC ILLNESS and not cover everything.

Why? Because to cover everything is to flood the hospitals and doctors with very unnecessary exams. Let people pay for the regular exams with CASH.

That would save everyone money as people would only go to the doctor if it was really necessary and would keep healthcare cost way down.

Keep in mind, 'free' is not free.

Bruce Hayden said...

Modern women seem to view men as sperm providing financial slaves.

A lot of those above, I honk, get it. Ever since I saw Obama's Julia commercials, I have, I think, understood at least some of the gender gap. At least some women out there are perfectly happy screwing whom they want, allowing however as many guys as they want to father t their kids, and depending on the government to fulfill the role that the kids' father used to. A lot of freedom there. What could go wrong?

The answer, of course, is that a lot goes wrong. First and foremost, having to provide support for one's wife and children is one of the major drivers of male ambition. The left, including all the Julias out there, are cutting the males out here, severing sexual access to women by men from the support of the resulting offspring. With this separation, many males remain more interested in their own self indulgence than in settling down and working to build a career, etc. Instead, many just earn enough to play.

The other part of this is that without the requirement that women provide sexual access in order to gain support for them and their children, a lot of their children end up being raised without the help of their own father, where if there is an adult male in the household, he likely won't have a blood relationship with those children, and in many cases, the women will attempt to raise the children on their own. That means that many of the boys are never properly socialized, and the girls follow their mothers into generational poverty and governmental dependence. It is no mere coincidence these days that the Black community has nearly a 75% illigitimacy rate, and their males commit maybe half the violent crimes here, while only being maybe one fifth the population, and so much of the inmate population. These were males never fully socialized because they were more often than not raised in fatherless households (and then weren't further socialized in order to get breeding opportunities).

The problem here is that the left is trading political favors such as this for votes, and then pleading good intentions when their policies, such as this end up with so much blood on the streets.

Elise Ronan said...

I'm not certain what the problem happens to be. the way insurance works is that all costs are actualized between all buyers. There are always medical procedures that you pay for in your group policy that you never use. Maternity care, well child care and even acupuncture may be among the types of procedures you do not need. It is also a benefit to society that parents are encouraged to get proper healthcare during pregnancy and that children get the healthcare they need as well. Healthy children and parents are a benefit instead of a drain on society)

Women do not need PSA tests or prostate care but under insurance group policies we pay for that. On the other hand, as we age we need mammograms, colonoscopies, heart care etc. The younger people pay for that as well. It's a trade off with each of us helping pay for medical procedures that we do not need and do not want.

Bob Ellison said...

I seem to be getting better at trolling. It's a surprisingly difficult mission.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bob Ellison said...

The secret, I think, is to lose yourself in the character. Actors talk about this. Tom Cruise wails about being a soldier in Afghanistan.

People online react very quickly to what they read and see. I do that, too.

Deletion expected...

n.n said...

It sounds like an extortion scheme to obtain survivor benefits. This is similar to the design of Obamacare but restricted to pre-birth exploitation.

Perhaps women, and the men who conceive with them, should be offered a choice. One, don't murder your child, and take responsibility for his welfare. Two, don't murder your child, shift responsibility, then voluntarily submit for neutering or spaying. Three, murder your child, then lose your liberty, and perhaps your life.

That said, if women are willing and capable of not murdering their children, are willing and capable of moderating their sexual activity, then in the interest of promoting the general Welfare it would be reasonable to offer assistance. However, a further condition necessary to reducing risk for society, and new human lives, is that men and women who conceive together be married first.

jimbino said...

Consider the birds of the air and the beasts of the field; they sow not, neither do they reap. They don't continue to breed and reproduce when food and habitat are in short supply.

That's why humans are smarter: we have created gummint welfare, so that when habitat and food are in short supply, we can go on breeding and reproducing anyway.

n.n said...

Is it a smart policy to negotiate with terrorists in order to save a hostage's life? It seems that if we negotiate on their terms, then we will invite more of their uncivilized behavior.

The Drill SGT said...

Elise Ronan said...
I'm not certain what the problem happens to be. the way insurance works is that all costs are actualized between all buyers. There are always medical procedures that you pay for in your group policy that you never use.


Group policies are by definition, "Group Policies", and purchased by the employer (generally), not an individual, that is why they are called what they are called. An employee may or may not contribute, but the cost is based on the actual risk of the employer's group. Other groups have different costs and risks.

The post-obamacare individual policies dampen or eliminate risk in the pricing...

elkh1 said...

Men should pay for abortion of other men's babies, pay for maternity for their wives.

EDH said...

There are always medical procedures that you pay for in your group policy that you never use.

In a free market, isn't that line determined by transaction and information costs?

In other words, breaking-out a procedure for special inclusion or deletion in a policy offering would have to be worth its cost in terms of attracting new market share.

Trashhauler said...

How did we get to the point where everything has been legally tied to what's best for women?

Education is dominated by concern for girls and women at all levels, nevermind the growing adverse circumstances for males.

We are told that sexual harassment and assault are at epidemic levels, though apparently that really only applies to women. Who presumably are forever scarred by such things, whereas men are not. Women can drink themselves into a non-permissive state, but men are liable for anything they might do whilst drunk.

Abortion without limit is sacrosanct, except when the woman decides it ain't. Whereupon, it is our duty to cover all expenses even when denied access to the child.

The military cannot make do without women, though we used to have a military twice the size with very few women. But, of course, women have a right to serve, so that right must be extended to impractical levels of physical capability.

It is increasingly difficult to even identify what male traits are useful, without pointing out there are women who can do better. And men are more admired for whatever feminine attributes they might possess, presumably because such attributes make them more understanding of women.

As a father and grandfather, I take pleasure and pride in assisting and cheering on my daughter, daughter-in-law, and four granddaughters. And worry that my son (a university professor), son-in-law, and grandson are constantly awash in an essentially anti-male soup of prejudices and expectations.

wildswan said...

No culture will last if its birth rate falls below replacement level. No culture will keep its birth rate up if the traditional family in that culture collapses. That's the take away on the social engineering of the forty years. the vast majority of nations are being wiped out by collapsing birth rates. Within the nations which have kept their birth rates up, like the United States, certain groups, such as the African-Americans, are facing extinction. Their birth rate has fallen below replacement level and the family unit is destroyed. Its just anecdotal to talk about welfare cheats and super dads. The reality of the trend is extermination unless the African-American family revives. And the left will not work on this issue or acknowledge it. The only chance is the rise of Ted Cruz or someone just like him to high office. I suppose liberals would rather die than have that happen; and I suppose that as a group they will.

cubanbob said...

The long-term prosperity of the U.S. depends on healthy citizens, men supply the sperm, it’s just a genetic lottery that made you a man and not a woman, and think of your mother who had to bear you!

I am all in favor of each man paying his child support, provided he agreed to be a dad in the first place. I'm not in favor of paying other people's child support. Now if the government's goal depends depends on men stepping up to the plate it would be wiser to stop encouraging the Julia's and start encouraging men to man up and marry.

Elise you do understand the difference between insurance and pre-paid medical services and the difference between group plans and individual plans? That many of the "benefits" are state mandates such as acupuncture and chiropractors and not necessarily market driven choices sought out by the insured.

Real American said...

again, this is just a tax on healthy people - and redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those who didn't.

SGT Ted said...

When women won the right to tear up the old social contract of babies and housekeeping in exchange for financial support, they forgot that men were freed from it as well. That the feminists continue expecting men to be held to the old contract shows their dishonesty and double dealing.

handworn said...

The implication behind this link's logic is that if sex happens, it's solely because of the desire of the man, because that's the only possible basis for putting the financial responsibility for the baby on men alone.

So, women who are for this kind of thing-- next time you have sex, lie back and think of England, because consistency demands that you not enjoy it. (Nice relationship, by the way!)

Jane said...

Yeah, Slate's XX blog had a similar post a day or two prior, massively failing to understand what insurance means. The author seems to thing that "insurance" is just another word for "spreading the costs among the community" when it's a tangible concept of the insurer underwriting each individual's specific risk.

In other words, they really need some remedial education the meaning of the term "insurance."

Look, if we want to get into costs that women, specifically, bear, better to have government-provided benefits than these indirect subsidies. Of course, men could complain that they should get food subsidies because they, by their own biology, consume more calories, but hey why not?

Of course, when women bear said children inside of a marriage, it's a cost borne by the couple together and not "unfairly" placed on the women. But in the world of Slate's XX, if a woman has a child while married, it's more by coincidence than anything.

Ann Althouse said...

The complaint only comes from adult males without families. As a group, we don't care much about these individuals. Why do they think they'll be successful at convincing the political majority to cut them exemptions?

Ann Althouse said...

The argument of fairness doesn't work well, and neither really does the argument about the meaning of insurance.

Obamacare doesn't care about the traditional meaning of insurance. It's a political deal.

Now, it was a deal made by a narrow, partisan, lying bunch of politicos, so there you are. Use that,

Ann Althouse said...

As a group, we need to count on women's willingness to bear children. If conditions are bad for maternity, we are all screwed.

Jane and the rest of us may prefer that these mothers be married, but the minimal preference, that there be a next generation, is much more important.

We are not forcing women to bear children, so we need to encourage volunteers. Making life nasty for mothers without husbands is an iffy strategy.

Maybe part of the GOP's alternative to Obamacare should be free maternity care, as a welfare benefit. Then a private health care insurance market.

richard mcenroe said...

"All of the resources and money in the world are community-owned. It's only natural and moral to require sharing them."

Then I see no reason to waste my time and energy producing, refining or otherwise providing those materials just so some fatuous leech can come along and take his unearned cut. I propose to put out as much effort as he does until someone comes along and gives me my free crap.

Shouting Thomas said...

@Althouse.

As usual, you believe that lawyerly logic is the answer.

You're wrong again.

The answer is moral. Traditional. Those things you are incapable of understanding because they don't put money in your pocket, or increase your status.

Read Mikhail Lermontov's "Heroes Of Our Times."

I don't care to be ruled by lawyer's logic, Althouse. In my private life, I've succeed in freeing myself from it. From my vantage point, the oppressor is you.

You tried to ridicule me about status not too long ago. Good. That's your blind spot. The way I escape having your boot on my neck is by being nobody.

Roux said...

It already subsidies maternity care.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

What if I'm already a responsible male, and teaching my son to be responsible? Is the behavior of the rest of the world something that I have control over.

Women underestimate my powers, apparently. I'm only a man. I'm not God.

The underlying theme, though, is apparently that women have to be taken care of, and that men will do it. How is that a feminist viewpoint?

I'm reminded of the Toilet Seat Up/Down argument. Women want the seat down -- they want to be taken care of -- so they don't fall in.

Take control of your own destiny!

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jimbino said...

Jesus and St Paul, the inventor of Christianity, were lifelong bachelors. St. Paul even advised believers against marriage.

Where does Althouse get the idea that marriage and breeding should be tolerated, much less supported?

She's entitled to her opinion, but not to the pretense that support of breeding is self-evidently justified.

n.n said...

So, the argument is that violence or the threat of violence is a legitimate strategy because it is effective. This implies that a large minority, or perhaps even a majority, of human beings are immoral creatures.

I prefer to consider a reconciliation process, and there are legitimate and justifiable requests for redress, but today many of those requests are illegitimate or excessive and can only be fulfilled through selective or class persecution, which will motivate a recurring cycle of redistributive and retributive change.

It is not reasonable to comply with the demands of terrorists on their terms without sponsoring progressive terrorism. They want something. We want something. Ideally, there will be a compromise through reconciliation. So, what is each party willing to sacrifice? What is the criteria (e.g. principles) that will set the boundaries for negotiation?

That said, if this represents the new morality, then it behooves the individual, male, female, or whatever, to focus their attention on maximizing their profits before the next minority or majority group possesses sufficient leverage to marginalize or eviscerate them. This is a deadly cycle which humans seem incapable of escaping.

El Pollo Raylan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
El Pollo Raylan said...

Ann Althouse said...
"The complaint only comes from adult males without families. As a group, we don't care much about these individuals. Why do they think they'll be successful at convincing the political majority to cut them exemptions?"

Bullshit on the exclusionary only there, Althouse. You are missing my point earlier, perhaps because I masked it in irony. It relates to men's natural revulsion to cuckoldry. Most men balk at supporting other men's children unless there is a familial or romantic reason to do so. I have zero interest in raising and patience for supporting some strange woman's babydaddy kids because really, in the end, it encourages more fatherless kids.

You can raise two counterpoints: the first is that we as a society need such support, to which I would answer that no, we don't. There are other cultures and societies on the traditional parenting spectrum more than willing to pick up the progenitive challenge and replace us. It would not be a historical first.

Secondly, you could argue via threats that failure to support the entire village's children will lead to higher crime, etc. But at least be honest about that please.

El Pollo Raylan said...

One way to encourage single men who balk at supporting other people's kids (OPK) is to refrain from harassing them for stigmatizing the babydaddy phenomenon, even if it cuts across racial lines. Full stop. And women need to realize that once public monies are coerced, public policy becomes everyone's business. One of the benefits of private insurance was greater privacy.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Because the chirping of crickets is so loud here, I'm willing to posit that many women and liberals here deny the maxim that "you get more of something if you subsidize it."

Or even if they do acknowledge it they are in denial about how to counter it.

mtrobertsattorney said...

The more thoughtful public policy is for government to explicitly encourage intact father/mother families with tax credits and other benefits.

Special benefits only for mothers without husbands, including, of course, babymomas, just deals with a symptom. It doesn't addres the cause.

mtrobertsattorney said...

The more thoughtful public policy is for government to explicitly encourage intact father/mother families with tax credits and other benefits.

Special benefits only for mothers without husbands, including, of course, babymomas, just deals with a symptom. It doesn't addres the cause.

Michael K said...

"Jesus and St Paul, the inventor of Christianity, were lifelong bachelors. St. Paul even advised believers against marriage."

There is some disagreement about Mary Magdalene; and didn't Paul say "Better to marry than burn"?

Jim S. said...

But even if you don’t care at all about the women bearing the children, you should care about live human babies that are going to be born regardless of whether their mothers get adequate prenatal care...

Are we allowed to care about the live human babies before they're born?

...And really, really bad things happen to babies whose mothers don’t get adequate prenatal care.

Like being killed? Does that qualify as a really, really bad thing?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Ann,

The complaint only comes from adult males without families.

Not so. It comes from post-menopausal women like me; it comes from women who have had hysterectomies. It comes, in fact, from a lot of people who do not want to be forced to insure themselves against risks that they don't face.

As a group, we don't care much about these individuals. Why do they think they'll be successful at convincing the political majority to cut them exemptions?

Exemptions from insuring themselves against risks they don't face? Why not? I don't suppose women are terribly keen on insuring themselves against prostate cancer either.

Big Mike said...

The argument at the link is coherent only if you concede that we are no longer talking about insurance. We're talking about taxation to pay for a welfare benefit.

Isn't that what Roberts said?

And ah, wouldn't the insurance premiums then go down if abortion rates went up? Maybe Dan Savage was onto something?

wildswan said...

I just don't see how government can raise birth rates by taxes etc. once an anti-family culture exists. Women have to feel that they will be supported while they raise the children or they won't do it. Emotional support from family and father of the children, financial support, a sense of a future, a sense that raising children is interesting, not just a good idea for society - all that is necessary. And there are whole cultural groups, like Northeastern liberals, where most of that is missing ---- and so are the children (luckily for them). All the same these lacks are an identifiable social crisis. Because the ultimate outcome is the extinction of the social group.

Besides it isn't the presence of children that is so overwhelming these days; it is their absence. And the same is true of men. It isn't absent dads; it's men who aren't dads of any kind, present, absent, past or future and this in enormous numbers that makes the scene so depressing. It's the huge numbers of absent children and dads, not the child-free condition itself. That condition used to be the outcome of all sorts of causes but now it is social choice. Here's child but no dad; here's a man but no child and over and over and all the consequences. Naturally women hesitate and a tax credit won't do much about that. At least that is how it looks to me these days.

Big Mike said...

I don't suppose women are terribly keen on insuring themselves against prostate cancer either.

The doctors don't do PSA screening anymore Michelle. By the time they find out we're ready to be buried. (And good riddance, says Inga.)

Anglelyne said...

The Drill SGT: Doesn't that theory lead directly to outlawing abortion?

Modern feminists and progressives still haven't caught on that desacralizing human life via abortion-on-demand inevitably desacralizes motherhood.

Anglelyne said...

El Pollo Raylan: Most men balk at supporting other men's children unless there is a familial or romantic reason to do so. I have zero interest in raising and patience for supporting some strange woman's babydaddy kids because really, in the end, it encourages more fatherless kids.

And in doing so it also reduces the responsible man's ability to accumulate resources to support children of his own. The irresponsible and their enablers cry "but, the children!" and "we're the future!", while they systematically deprive the responsible man of his opportunity to participate in the future via his own progeny.

Bob Ellison said...

The comparison to property taxes supporting schools must be faced. Why is one tax right, and not the other?

Renee said...

Men should cover for matrernity care, only if they are actively having sex with women. Why should virgins and gay men pay?

PeterJ said...

Shouldn't one specific man pay for the baby-- the father? That was the usual arrangement, back in the days when a baby had a father's name put on the birth certificate. It worked pretty well in many cases.

El Pollo Raylan said...

Shouldn't one specific man pay for the baby-- the father? That was the usual arrangement, back in the days when a baby had a father's name put on the birth certificate. It worked pretty well in many cases.

Stop being so quadrangularly-normative!

PowderSpringsCityCouncilWatch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
HoodlumDoodlum said...

"The complaint only comes from adult males without families. As a group, we don't care much about these individuals"

Althouse to single men: Drop Dead. Well, no, wait, don't drop dead, you suckers/potential splooge stooges have to pay for this shit.

"As a group, we need to count on women's willingness to bear children. If conditions are bad for maternity, we are all screwed.

...

We are not forcing women to bear children, so we need to encourage volunteers. Making life nasty for mothers without husbands is an iffy strategy."

In other words:
1. There is a good thing we all want (the ability for people to reproduce successfully)
2. Certain plans to produce this good thing primarily benefit women (cross subsidizing their healthcare, maternity care, etc)
3. All men are morally required to pay under these plans and any dissent from that idea is objectionable/whining

I'm not sure that sounds exactly fair. Wait, the "argument of fairness doesn't work well." Damn, ok, so let's see.

Hey, why not look at first world industrial nations with generous welfare programs, including maternity benefits, and see how that's helping their birthrates? Gee, those generous women-friendly Continentals seem to be reproducing at a lower rate than we are, and relying more heavily than we do on importing people to maintain their populations. Let's definitely not draw any type of lesson from that.

I honestly wonder if people like Althouse ever consider how long their preferred (in this example anyway) social arrangement can possibly last. Someone has to pay for this, for all of it!

Each time the concerns of those whining unmarried men or mewling divorced dads or simpering single guys are minimized and mocked I wonder if it's with any cognizance of the fact that the existence of this system depends on the willing participation of those men. Why work hard, guys? Why strive, why risk, why struggle to make something of yourself? Listen to Althouse, listen to the voice of society: you don't matter! Your needs, concerns, desires -- they mean nothing! At best they are secondary to women's, and God help you if those conflict. You are not important, you do not matter, but you must pay. Because babies. Because women. Because someone has to pay, and it won't be women.

Just say "I will work harder" and don't even think about putting down that globe, guys. And quit expecting a "thanks." Whiners.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Just a reminder; Althouse in July 2013:

"The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation. Those who do other things are free to make choices, but we as a society have no reason to facilitate their choices, especially their destructive choices.

I know people like their free sex, but the expectation that the rest of us will save them from consequences is pathetic. I heartlessly laugh in their face."

...but of course, that was for men. Women's destructive choices, women facing consequences, women having to pay for the results of their decisions? That different you guys!

jacksonjay said...

What does the Genius, Lena Dunham think?

n.n said...

There is a constitutional basis for social welfare, but the benefit for each party must be reciprocal. The general Welfare is promoted by a healthy, educated, and moral Posterity. The issue with any redistributive effort, but especially where it is non-contributory (e.g. welfare) or disproportionate, is that it cannot sponsor corruption, and it cannot promote dependency. That would be counterproductive to the letter and spirit of our national charter and constitution; and it will cause a progressive infringement of individual rights, and will ultimately undermine the general Welfare.

That said, a women holding her Posterity hostage cannot be trusted to act in good faith. This is evidence of extreme moral degeneracy, which must be treated or excised. A civilized society cannot tolerate expression of such an aberrant behavior, especially when it violates a human being's unalienable right to Life. Those who advocate or promote this behavior are complicit in violating a fundamental right to Life. There is no cause or justification to terminate a human life before birth other than in the extreme and rare case where self-defense is merited.

EMD said...

The "think of mom" guilt trip is so very precious.

We blame men for everything wrong with the world, but who makes men into what they are?

Mothers. Who are ... women.

Peter said...

IF we're going to pay women to have children then surely we have a right to choose which women we'd like to pay? Or at least have a differential payment based on our preferences?

It's hardly a secret that professional women give up many of their fertile years in preparing for a career; would it not, therefore, make sense to pay these women more?

Or at least pay only those women who can pass a basic likely-to-be-a-responsible-mother test? Every culture needs babies, but are we so desperate for wombs that we'll pay for babies even from "I'd really rather party" irresponsible child-mommies?

If this is an explicitly pro-natal program (and not the usual banal claim that others should have an ironclad right to spend what you earn) then surely those who pay should be able to choose which mommy-child dyads they'd like to subsidize.

If choosy moms can choose Jif (using money from our paychecks), can't we be choosy about which moms we choose to subsidize?

Anthony said...

And really, really bad things happen to babies whose mothers don’t get adequate prenatal care.

Not so much.