Male Financial Abortions

[ChainsofAssery]

How do you people feel about this? I'll give you my case for it.

Men should be allowed to "abort" from parental responsibilities, so long as an abortion is available to the woman. Normally, women get to decide the fate of not only the fetus but also the father. We tend to say that the man needs to accept the consequences of his actions by at least paying child support, for the "good of the child", yet the woman has zero responsibility to preserving the fetus and becoming a parent if she does not wish to. Moreover, the man could desperately want to become a father but if the woman does not wish to there's nothing he can do to stop her.

If the mother does not feel ready financially to become a mother, she has no obligation to become one. Fathers do not have that option. Child support programs have been found to have a negative effect on a father's employment status, and thus has a negative effect on the child support being paid.


Child support is supposedly there to help the child. Yet studies have shown child support is detrimental to the child's psychological well-being. I'm in the process of moving to a new house right now, and the book I have with the study is at my new place. But yeah, combined with the fact that child support does little to take a single-parent family out of poverty, it seems child support fails to achieve its purpose and serves as no more than an unjust way to coerce a parent into something he did not consent to (if sex is consent to parenthood, then most abortions aren't justified).

 

[Rixus]

First of all, I'll agree with you that child support is a terrible system. I haven't seen it offer any help to anyone - partly because in this country the amount the father pays is subtracted first from any benefits the mother receives. And many decent fathers are stripped of disposable income that they could have used to spend more quality time with their children or providing things they needed; such as additional clothing and toys etc. But it is not used in this way that I have seen - I've recently knew someone who discovered she could claim it from her ex even though she would not allow him to see the children at all and she spent it on additional alcohol and take away so it didn't improve their lives at all.

I'm actually a single father of 3, and I don't expect their mother to provide any additional financial support for us. In fact, I technically still provide support for her by paying her mother to look after the kids while I'm in work which allows very convenient access times for her.

With regards to your question on financial abortions. My first instinct as a parent is to say, "why would you?" I love my kids and wouldn't want to be unburdened of them. But thought experiment time - you go out one night and hook up with someone. You use protection. Protection breaks (rare, but it does happen and it's happened to me). She says don't worry, she'll take the morning after the next day. But she does not and does not inform you. Two years later, you are given a child support bill with no option to have ever been an effective father. Now in these circumstances (that I have witnessed) the woman doesn't even want you to be a major part of the kids life. In a case like this where you were totally unaware and had no way of knowing about it or of being a parental figure, I may agree with you that you should be able to exonerate your responsibility and not be considered a parent.

However, if you have been a part of the child's life until the break up, you should always be. This is best for the child. But child support should only be necessary where a father has tried to leave the family and has no interest in continuing to support his child. As I said, the most "support" I will even accept from my ex is to occasionally buy them some new clothes, shoes, toys, presents or to take them somewhere nice on her access days. On the other hand, I do know of one mother who transferred the money straight to her daughter and allowed to buy clothes or anything she needed for school (within reason, like).

In short, one size fits all doesn't work and there is no answer single answer to this. It should be decided on a case by case basis of the circumstances.

 

[Jennywocky]

in the USA (or at least some notable states), religious pressures and legislation driven by them essentially force women to carry fetuses to term as much as possible and subject women to shame campaigns about abortion, even early first trimester abortions. to put it bluntly, women don't necessarily have as much choice as is being presented, and with a new conservative SCOTUS, probably even more restrictions will sneak through. if women had TOTAL freedom to decide whether or not to carry a fetus to term and raise a child, perhaps then the proposals here would make more sense, but often a female is saddled with the pregnancy and without rules a guy could just walk off and leave the kids and her stuck.

I agree there are inadequacies in the child support system; I have seen improvements in how custody and support is handled (at least in the states I've been in), but at the same time the mother is typically favored and the support services seem more responsive to her needs and communications.

In short, one size fits all doesn't work and there is no answer single answer to this. It should be decided on a case by case basis of the circumstances.

Idealistically. But when you're underfunded and there are many cases to process, you're just not gonna have time to look at each case in a nuanced fashion... and standardized rules supposedly weed favoritism out of the system. So there are problems with that too, realistically. How do we translate the ideal into a real system that works?

 

[Rixus]

in the USA (or at least some notable states), religious pressures and legislation driven by them essentially force women to carry fetuses to term as much as possible and subject women to shame campaigns about abortion, even early first trimester abortions. to put it bluntly, women don't necessarily have as much choice as is being presented, and with a new conservative SCOTUS, probably even more restrictions will sneak through. if women had TOTAL freedom to decide whether or not to carry a fetus to term and raise a child, perhaps then the proposals here would make more sense, but often a female is saddled with the pregnancy and without rules a guy could just walk off and leave the kids and her stuck.

I agree there are inadequacies in the child support system; I have seen improvements in how custody and support is handled (at least in the states I've been in), but at the same time the mother is typically favored and the support services seem more responsive to her needs and communications.

Idealistically. But when you're underfunded and there are many cases to process, you're just not gonna have time to look at each case in a nuanced fashion... and standardized rules supposedly weed favoritism out of the system. So there are problems with that too, realistically. How do we translate the ideal into a real system that works?

As I said, I mostly meant where the father is not even aware that he has a child and doesn't have the option to be part of the child's life. Being a parent is about more than just financing them. And I know that realistically, you can't have a system without some rules. But surely there can be different rules for different circumstances? Perhaps the mother should have an obligation to inform the father of the pregnancy?

I suppose it depends on where you are - I've seen more teenage girls forced into abortions that they didn't want and couldn't emotionally handle than I have seen shamed for it. I think we're a lot more secular and liberal here, though. Speaking against is considered slighting a woman's rights.

The father debate is an interesting one. I here most non-resident fathers telling me that their ex's withheld contact for no apparent reason - it's almost the done thing. Mostly it's not over money but because of a bad breakup that should not affect their access rights.

I just think child support is only really necessary where the father optionally decides not to help out. If a father is willing to help out, I don't see it's need. I know the idea of buying them extra clothes or electronics or whatever seems like trying to buy affection from the kids - but these things are necessities and make their life better. If I wasn't the resident parent, I certainly wouldn't let my child go without. Of course, my ex had already communicated that her demands would be unreasonable - she expected 1/3 of my salary, to leave all debts with me and for me to have the kids all weekend where apparently they would have to go without food; and this is not unusual (but thankfully, I got the kids and I think everyone can agree that worked out best for everyone.)

Just saying that if everyone was reasonable about it the whole thing wouldn't be necessary. But, then, people are shitty and you don't leave your door unlocked at night because ideally no one should try to break in.

And - subtracting the child support from the resident parent's benefits in this country is disgusting. If it's supposed to help impoverished families, why are impoverished families not receiving it? Why are they only given it if they apparently don't need extra money?

 

[ChainsofAssery]

With regards to your question on financial abortions. My first instinct as a parent is to say, "why would you?" I love my kids and wouldn't want to be unburdened of them. But thought experiment time - you go out one night and hook up with someone. You use protection. Protection breaks (rare, but it does happen and it's happened to me). She says don't worry, she'll take the morning after the next day. But she does not and does not inform you. Two years later, you are given a child support bill with no option to have ever been an effective father. Now in these circumstances (that I have witnessed) the woman doesn't even want you to be a major part of the kids life. In a case like this where you were totally unaware and had no way of knowing about it or of being a parental figure, I may agree with you that you should be able to exonerate your responsibility and not be considered a parent.

However, if you have been a part of the child's life until the break up, you should always be. This is best for the child. But child support should only be necessary where a father has tried to leave the family and has no interest in continuing to support his child. As I said, the most "support" I will even accept from my ex is to occasionally buy them some new clothes, shoes, toys, presents or to take them somewhere nice on her access days. On the other hand, I do know of one mother who transferred the money straight to her daughter and allowed to buy clothes or anything she needed for school (within reason, like).

You sound like a good father. I'm mainly arguing for financial abortions that are open to the fathers (or mothers I suppose) during the pregnancy, while an abortion is open to the mother at the very least. Along with the situation that you've described: mother suddenly calls up father X years after child is born demanding payments.

Though at the same time, the mother (in most situations) still always has the option of abolishing her parental rights and by that fact her financial responsibilities. The kid could be 5 years old and if the mother wishes to, assuming she has full custody, she can put the child up for adoption. While the father, who has been paying child support, gets zero say (or so I assume). So why not allow for a financial abortion at any time during the 18 years? That OR we give fathers more rights in regards to what happens to their children.

in the USA (or at least some notable states), religious pressures and legislation driven by them essentially force women to carry fetuses to term as much as possible and subject women to shame campaigns about abortion, even early first trimester abortions. to put it bluntly, women don't necessarily have as much choice as is being presented, and with a new conservative SCOTUS, probably even more restrictions will sneak through. if women had TOTAL freedom to decide whether or not to carry a fetus to term and raise a child, perhaps then the proposals here would make more sense, but often a female is saddled with the pregnancy and without rules a guy could just walk off and leave the kids and her stuck.

I agree there are inadequacies in the child support system; I have seen improvements in how custody and support is handled (at least in the states I've been in), but at the same time the mother is typically favored and the support services seem more responsive to her needs and communications.

Yes I agree there needs to be a level of equal freedoms between the two genders. But the woman can also put the child up for adoption if she wishes to. That and these financial abortions should go both ways; the woman can also give up her parental rights so that the father is the sole provider, and thus she abolishes her financial responsibilities too.

 

[Cognisant]

What is needed is some sort of written pre-cloitical agreement for parental consent, if consent is not given by the male he is not legally obligated to support any children resulting from the fornication.

For reasons of practicality this form would cover a given time period in months rather than a single session of fornication so when the child was conceived isn’t a matter of debate.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

What is needed is some sort of written pre-cloitical agreement for parental consent, if consent is not given by the male he is not legally obligated to support any children resulting from the fornication.

For reasons of practicality this form would cover a given time period in months rather than a single session of fornication so when the child was conceived isn’t a matter of debate.

While the female is agreeing NOT to hold the male liable which she is legally entitled to do, the male is only agreeing not to be held liable. It would be just a promise and not an enforceable contract because there is no consideration from the male.

How do you people feel about this? I'll give you my case for it.

Men should be allowed to "abort" from parental responsibilities, so long as an abortion is available to the woman. Normally, women get to decide the fate of not only the fetus but also the father. We tend to say that the man needs to accept the consequences of his actions by at least paying child support, for the "good of the child", yet the woman has zero responsibility to preserving the fetus and becoming a parent if she does not wish to. Moreover, the man could desperately want to become a father but if the woman does not wish to there's nothing he can do to stop her.

If the mother does not feel ready financially to become a mother, she has no obligation to become one. Fathers do not have that option.

Sounds like a good idea for the father. Let's say between conception and the fetal abortion cutoff the male has the option to make his case that he didn't intend for a pregnancy. The mother then makes a choice between accepting the pregnancy or not.

One thing I'd point out though is that pregnancy is inherently imbalanced. It's the woman who has to carry the fetus to term, and it's the woman who stands to suffer from potential social shame or financial ruin. Yes there is exploitative child support but first the woman has to find and make a claim against the father in the first place.

Child support programs have been found to have a negative effect on a father's employment status, and thus has a negative effect on the child support being paid.


Child support is supposedly there to help the child. Yet studies have shown child support is detrimental to the child's psychological well-being. I'm in the process of moving to a new house right now, and the book I have with the study is at my new place. But yeah, combined with the fact that child support does little to take a single-parent family out of poverty, it seems child support fails to achieve its purpose and serves as no more than an unjust way to coerce a parent into something he did not consent to (if sex is consent to parenthood, then most abortions aren't justified).

Financially exploiting fathers is bad yes, but keep in mind the purpose of the policy is for the kid. What is best for the forlorn child in this situation? Some kind of dual financial support or none at all?

While we're at it, let's tack on that teens must go through parental information programs, that parents who abort must receive counseling afterwards, and that birth control condoms and pills are provided free of charge so that children never have to be born to such irresponsible people.

It is depressing to see children being discussed like they are hot potatoes.

 

[Kuu]

"abort" from parental responsibilities

Yes.

But it's just not going to happen. Get a vasectomy.

 

[TheManBeyond]

/ since u have a head you can also prevent certain situations
/ ideally it should be a deal between two parts but once its done women will must have more weight in the decision
/ as I see it, since its your son you should pay, you would be a pathetic human being if you run away
/ other case scenarios are just too stupid to even consider

 

[Cognisant]

While the female is agreeing NOT to hold the male liable which she is legally entitled to do, the male is only agreeing not to be held liable. It would be just a promise and not an enforceable contract because there is no consideration from the male.

I imagined it would work something like indemnity of liability but I'm no legal expert and there is the potential exploit of the male getting the contract signed and intentionally getting the female pregnant so there would need to be a rape clause, which still isn't airtight but again I'm no legal expert.

/ other case scenarios are just too stupid to even consider

Uh mate this is an internet forum, just so you know

 

[QuickTwist]

I don't think abortion is the way to go to control the population. I like Chris Langan's idea where people apply to have kids much better.

 

[ChainsofAssery]

Financially exploiting fathers is bad yes, but keep in mind the purpose of the policy is for the kid. What is best for the forlorn child in this situation? Some kind of dual financial support or none at all?

Child support has been shown to do little for the single parent family. The mothers that need the money the most generally procreated with a man just as poor as her. All the forced child support does is impair the man's employment capacities which simply makes the issue worse. Moreover, we allow for the mother to abort the fetus before it even is a child simply (in most situations) because she has a right to bodily autonomy. Yet the man has no autonomy.

The best course of action for the child is universal day care, universal health care, better education, free activities open for all children, and universal mental health care. The detrimental psychological effects child support has been found to have on a child's mental health should be enough to show that kids don't "appreciate" money; rather they need stability, care, community, and support. Child support creates alienation for both the father and child.

Yes.

But it's just not going to happen. Get a vasectomy.

Unfortunately for medical reasons I can't get one and never will be able to.

 

[Rixus]

I was thinking about this. And however much I think - I come back to a simple answer. Whatever you think should happen, there's a small human being involved. When I found out my ex was pregnant for the first time, it wasn't planned and we were young and financially unequipped to raise children. Now my youngest is 11 and now seems to be growing up to someone I can be proud of. Same for the two that we subsequently produced before the end. Never at any point in there lives have I considered abandoning them or wished they'd never existed, and didn't for a second think about suggesting abortion. I don't really understand the thought patterns that lead to it. I'm not being judgemental about abortion; but abandoning my children and not wanting to support them is kind of an alien concept and I don't know why it would be considered.

It never happened to me, but I was thinking of an incident when I was 19 when a girl I didn't like slept with my while I was incoherently out of it having been spike by god knows what (not by her, though), and I'm aware it was unprotected. Thankfully I was able to verify that no pregnancy resulted form the incident, but I think we can agree I was not in a position to consent to a lifelong financial responsibility. Even if that did happen, I don't think I could let my own child suffer. I don't disagree that the system doesn't work - it needs reform. And if it did happen after I already had another family, it would be very difficult I admit it.

I still don't think I could go about life knowing I'd left a child without any support. I do agree the system needs reform, and I would not agree with 10 years of back paid bills. It doesn't seem to work the way it is. But no, I do not agree with financial abortions at any point in the kids life. A mother cannot just do that. If she gave the child up, you would become the resident parent and she'd have to pay. Unless someone else adopted them, I suppose. But let's be honest - that just doesn't happen. You can have the mother agree to remove you from responsibility, but only at her consent. I may agree to a court agreeing to the judgement in the 10 years have passed without you even knowing cases, but other than that I can't think of a relevant circumstance.

 

[ChainsofAssery]

. Never at any point in there lives have I considered abandoning them or wished they'd never existed, and didn't for a second think about suggesting abortion. I don't really understand the thought patterns that lead to it. I'm not being judgemental about abortion; but abandoning my children and not wanting to support them is kind of an alien concept and I don't know why it would be considered.

It's not like we would be forcing men to not be there financially for their children; rather we would be giving them equal choice. I can see why someone would consider it. Simply because your genitalia and DNA played a role in creating a person, you now are legally and morally bound to said person? Seems a bit unjust and arbitrary.

 

[Rixus]

It's not like we would be forcing men to not be there financially for their children; rather we would be giving them equal choice. I can see why someone would consider it. Simply because your genitalia and DNA played a role in creating a person, you now are legally and morally bound to said person? Seems a bit unjust and arbitrary.

My perspective is more the caring about the child - if you don't do it, who will? Whether fair or not, is it their fault? Not that I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but is any of it the fault of the little person who wonders why daddy didn't love them or want them? That's the conclusion​ I come back to. It's not solely about money, nor is it about you. It's about what is best for a small dependent human being who cannot take care of themselves. And once made, they cannot be unmade. Regardless of what rights any of us had in their creation or wish that it hadn't happened. It did happen and now has to be dealt with.

And remember, I am a resident parent and a father, with an ex who is not capable of taking care of them. So in my mind, as with many mother's in the circumstance of a father who doesn't want to know, I do not see that I have a choice but to be a responsible adult. Not I actually blame my ex now (she is incapable due to a mental illness) and not that I resent kids.

I was going to leave this thread, but one of my kids make an off hand comment today when I was practicing with my bow that if I accidentally shot someone with an arrow, they'd tell the policeman not to take me away because no one else can take care of them. I don't understand the not wanting them - very little can make me feel needed like your own children can.

 

[ChainsofAssery]

My perspective is more the caring about the child - if you don't do it, who will? Whether fair or not, is it their fault? Not that I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but is any of it the fault of the little person who wonders why daddy didn't love them or want them? That's the conclusion​ I come back to. It's not solely about money, nor is it about you. It's about what is best for a small dependent human being who cannot take care of themselves. And once made, they cannot be unmade. Regardless of what rights any of us had in their creation or wish that it hadn't happened. It did happen and now has to be dealt with.

I'm not disagreeing with you. Anyone who leaves his or her child is a pretty terrible person. But the mother knows her financial situation, if she isn't capable of supporting a child then it seems rather selfish to have the child anyway (in places where abortions are legal) and expect the father to help pay when he clearly stated he does not want any part in it. If it's all about the welfare of the child, and as you said "once made, they cannot be unmade," then perhaps those making the child, those with all of the power and autonomy, should have a greater responsibility and consider the consequences of their actions more.

Also, I'm on my phone so excuse the bad writing.

 

[redbaron]

If you don't want kids with your partner, this is something you should have both already discussed, along with the method of birth control you'll be using, associated risks, what will happen if pregnancy does occur etc.

And if your relationship isn't at that stage yet, just wear a condom.

So stupid.

 

[Cognisant]

Well now hang on, I see where you're coming from but I'm currently in a relationship with a woman from a less economically developed country and although I don't think this would be the case, I am wrong about things sometimes (hard to believe I know) and she may wish to get pregnant to take advantage of me. This is a concern for me even though I'm 26 (going on 27) and I consider 30-35 to be the time in one's life to be starting a family and I consider her a good prospect for that. I'm just not ready right now (emotionally or financially) for the responsibility and I know for sure I don't want in a situation where I'm supporting children I'm that separated from, not that I wouldn't support them but still the fact remains that I don't want that situation to arise.

I think men do need some protection other than "just don't have sex" and a vasectomy is something I'm considering if I can still have the job done by frozen sperm and artificial insemination.

Some form of parental indemnity would assure me that she's not going to take advantage of me and I acknowledge the idea is rife with potential problems, that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing or that it should be outright disregarded as stupid. If nothing else it adds further support to the notion that abortion is entirely the woman's choice, even if a parental indemnity form was never signed the fact that one could have been signed means that in the event of a condom breaking the man knew the risk he was taking and ought to be prepared for the outcome whatever it may be.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I'm uncertain of the way you're using the term parental indemnity. I understand that you ANAL and IANAL too but normally it means the parent choosing to free a third party of something that happens with the kid, but in this case you're both parents.

But Cog let's say you and your SO were grinding gears one night and weeks later you find out she became pregnant. Somehow you magically have video evidence and see that you both used protection. Who is at fault for the pregnancy? After a heated argument you both conclude it was an unlikely accident, no one is at fault. You decide that since no one is liable, and since you've already made it clear you didn't intend/want fatherhood, therefore you don't have any further business with your ex-SO and it's OK to leave her.

Your ex-SO however is still stuck with the baby, and incurs hospital and maternity leave costs(U.S. style, on hard mode), and is shamed by her family for being reckless, while you lose nothing. Or she can opt for an abortion(still US hard mode), and travel out of state, still wait days for an availability, and incur medical costs and unpaid time off because neither the gov't nor her insurance covers "elective surgery", and on top of that is outcast by her family and friends for being immoral, while you lose nothing. It's an inherently unequal relationship, where you lose nothing.


If you really want to do this, it would make sense for you to come to an agreement to pay your SO in the event of insemination, as a way not to hold you liable as a father. Then, she can decide between X amount of money and child free, or $0 and a single-parent, that's a more appropriate set of choices.

Or if you want to imagine pregnancy to be insurable like lives, cars, and homes where you could get financial coverage, there must be an assumption that you have an interest in your SO not getting pregnant. But your personal reasons for not wanting to be a father may not hold up to the same scrutiny as employee, auto, home or life insurance. Additionally, what's to stop you from filing a fraudulent claim with an accomplice?

In the end it's really absurd to even have to come to this when one should just take responsibility. But I do agree there is a lack of choice on the part of the father once impregnation occurs and the possibility of child support exploitation which isn't fair. For what it's worth, there is R&D going on for non-permanent male birth control. And you could take the certainty route and get a vasectomy while freezing your sperm as you mentioned.

 

[Seteleechete]

If you really want to do this, it would make sense for you to come to an agreement to pay your SO in the event of insemination, as a way not to hold you liable as a father. Then, she can decide between X amount of money and child free, or $0 and a single-parent, that's a more appropriate set of choices.

I can agree with the idea of both partners having to share/help with the costs of performing an abortion. It's just if one partner wants to keep the child while the other doesn't only the one wanting to keep the child should be held liable for costs, and if they are unable it should then fall on the state.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I can agree with the idea of both partners having to share/help with the costs of performing an abortion. It's just if one partner wants to keep the child while the other doesn't only the one wanting to keep the child should be held liable for costs, and if they are unable it should then fall on the state.

Yes that makes sense, in this situation you can't force the mother to give birth if it was the father who wanted to keep but you can make the same monetary offer to discourage abortion. For legal purposes I think you have to pay in advance to claim breach.

 

[Cognisant]

Your ex-SO however is still stuck with the baby, and incurs hospital and maternity leave costs(U.S. style, on hard mode), and is shamed by her family for being reckless, while you lose nothing. Or she can opt for an abortion(still US hard mode), and travel out of state, still wait days for an availability, and incur medical costs and unpaid time off because neither the gov't nor her insurance covers "elective surgery", and on top of that is outcast by her family and friends for being immoral, while you lose nothing. It's an inherently unequal relationship, where you lose nothing.

You realize your country is fucked up right?

If you really want to do this, it would make sense for you to come to an agreement to pay your SO in the event of insemination, as a way not to hold you liable as a father. Then, she can decide between X amount of money and child free, or $0 and a single-parent, that's a more appropriate set of choices.

Yes that does seem more reasonable.

Additionally, what's to stop you from filing a fraudulent claim with an accomplice?

The thought is very amusing

 

[ChainsofAssery]

Your ex-SO however is still stuck with the baby, and incurs hospital and maternity leave costs(U.S. style, on hard mode), and is shamed by her family for being reckless, while you lose nothing. Or she can opt for an abortion(still US hard mode), and travel out of state, still wait days for an availability, and incur medical costs and unpaid time off because neither the gov't nor her insurance covers "elective surgery", and on top of that is outcast by her family and friends for being immoral, while you lose nothing. It's an inherently unequal relationship, where you lose nothing.

That just shows how screwed up the system is and society. We shouldn't be shaming women for being "reckless", when in reality they were doing nothing reckless at all. It would be different if the woman was constantly having unprotected sex, but things happen. Condoms break, birth control fails. People get so aghast and prude when it comes to sex. There's such an "easy" solution, that being an early-term abortion. Mind bogglingly stupid that the US is taking a step backwards with them. It becomes morally gray after the nervous system has developed, but in the first trimester I really don't see the issue.

Or if you want to imagine pregnancy to be insurable like lives, cars, and homes where you could get financial coverage, there must be an assumption that you have an interest in your SO not getting pregnant. But your personal reasons for not wanting to be a father may not hold up to the same scrutiny as employee, auto, home or life insurance. Additionally, what's to stop you from filing a fraudulent claim with an accomplice?

While I think all health-care, including abortions, should be covered under the government, if it were insurable it should work as either the insurance will pay for the abortion or will pay for hospital bills when giving birth. I don't see it being possible for the insurance company to give out something like monthly child care payments. Maybe for the first 5 years of its life or something. Either way, I don't think someone would have an "accidental" pregnancy just so that she could get a free abortion or get a measly amount of money that barely covers the child's food bill every month.