This is a very interesting comment that could easily be posted as an article. I had trouble connecting most of it to what I wrote, though.
My boss told me once that what was obvious to me was usually not obvious to anybody else. Thanks for pointing that out. I assumed that everybody was using the same definition for the term “Abortion.” So, hopefully I can clarify some things:
1. The term “Abortion” defined for this article: a procedure performed by a doctor, at the request of the mother, to terminate a pregnancy.
2. Natural terminations are not relevant to the article, except concerning ignorant legislators who don’t understand biology and try to legislate Nature.
3. The scope of this article starts with a pregnancy, the decision about the pregnancy, and responsibility of the father if a child is born. How the early “choice” part of the decision is made is not relevant. That is a different discussion.
4. The underlying economics driving the decision has nothing to do with solidifying the process of having the abortion, itself, if that is the decision. My proposal on the abortion side is to eliminate vagueness as much as possible.
5. I listed a few pro-life and pro-choice positions that I have read or seen somewhere and commented where they didn’t make much sense or were unrealistic.
6. Hunt down the father and make him pay. The current system usually has him voluntarily pay the court. The courts can order anything. That doesn’t make it happen. My proposal is a garnishment. He has current obligations? Sorry, this comes first.
7. So-called “safety net” — maybe that would help in making the decision, but the way that it has been implemented in many places has destroyed the family structure. Interesting, but out of scope.
8. Increase minimum wage — a feel-good, but worthless, exercise. If it goes up 20%, prices go up 20%, so the final impact is nil. Watched the same thing happen over and over for 50 years. Interesting, but out of scope.
9. Paid parental leave — should work, just like paid vacations. Interesting, but out of scope.
This article is not about cutting down abortions. It is about cutting down confusion generated by the middle portion of Roe-v-Wade and making the male partner responsible for his part of a pregnancy. If anything, it may change the direction of the discussion and something else entirely different may be implemented.
Your last statement is absolutely correct.