I think that putting life insurance on an unborn infant is like putting insurance on a car that isn't built yet. Doesn't make any sense. You are in the ocean of politics and money. Insurance companies don't want to pay out for a life that doesn't exist by legal standards because the payouts would be crazy if a lady was having miscarriages.
I do firmly believe that the father should help pay for all the doctor visits and whatever needs to be bought for the baby but not child support until the baby is born. The back lash on this is that if a guy pays child support for an infant that isn't born and you have a miscarriage or something, the guy has a right to get all his money back for the child support but not the cost of doctor visits and what not.
Most Helpful Opinions
Mold is life. An ant is life. The blood that runs down your legs once a month is life. But none of those things are a person. You can also run a dna test on all of those things and that still does not make any of those things people. A person is able to think and feel. At 21 weeks we know for sure that a baby can think and feel. We know this because premature babies at that age have survived with life support and react to pain and cry. At 13 weeks a fetus cannot do these things and is therefore not yet a person. In between those two points a fetus becomes a person. We don't know exactly when. I advise to err on the side of caution and assume any more than 13 weeks along is a thinking feeling person and act accordingly. Prior to that not. And FYI what an insurance company does has little bearing on such matters as the law, reality and what is right and wrong.
I would/intend to pay... not pay, wrong word, but pay the living costs of, in that sense finance, a mom-to-be of my child from the beginning of the 'we're having a baby' decision - so, honeymoon and then the rest.
Re: the insurance - there is no magic to it - they calculate the odds and the number of people interested in paying the premiums/costs, and then how much they can afford to pay (so, for 1000 people, let us say 20 could have a claim - if 900 premiums cover those claims, the other 100 is their income/salaries and profits). For an individual case, someone might offer it - but, again, if you are low risk what is the point, if you are high risk you will essentially only get what you paid in premiums.
Too many people see a baby developing as just a fetus. Inconsequential. So why ensure benefits for something that people can chose to kill off. They are perceived as not people by society. We all wouldn't have benefits if murder was legal and acceptable in everyday society. Why would the government waste their time and money? They instead make up for societal norms in other ways.
The baby doesn't need everything that child support is needed for yet. The mother needs more food, vitamins, and medical care for the baby. But that's why in the US, WIC to all pregnant women and free medical to unmarried pregnant women are available.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
42Opinion
I figure if women want unilateral decisions on abortion, then men should have unilateral decisions on whether to pay child support. After all, it was your choice.
Child support isn't life insurance, its child support and if the child is not born then your not really supporting it. Now you could argue that the father if one could be determined should have to help pay for all the procedures and medical bills for the pregnancy which I would be fine with, however in doing so you will have admitted that the child is in fact alive (and it is by definition) is a human being (it is by definition) and that abortion is murder (it is by definition) thus nullifying any supposed "right" to abortion women have (which again, I'm fine with). If however you would argue for abortion, then by extension no man is legally obligated to support the child and child support is by law discrimination and thus illegal. So pick your poison, men and women taking responsibility for their actions OR both parties being able to shirk said responsibilities.
Hahaha... great question. Welcome to the real world.
"Birth at conception" or "viability at heartbeat" or any other measuring stick, is an ongoing battle/discussion involving religion, moral, legal, ethical, individual considerations. But it is NOT a talking point for actuaries or insurance companies.
For starters, there's no individuality of life to insure. There has not been a birth, there's only an incubation. In the abstract, what would they be insuring - that the fetus comes to term and is healthy? Too many risk factors.
Rest assured, if an insurance company thought it would be a profitable venture, it would already have been done.Child support is for born kids. What if the mother abort it? You can't force men to pay child support when it is not even born and when they dont want the baby since the beginning of the pregnancy. Child support is a child right by the way and it is for the kid, not for mum or dad or whatever. Both parents should pay child support or look after the kid. Men or women who dont want to look after their kids but also dont want to pay child support, should be jailed for child abuse in my opinion. You can't just make kids and suddenly decide you dont want them anymore since this will destroy kids emotionally and make them have mental illness and so it is indirect child abuse.
Its cause the baby isn't actually living until it hits earth side. They also have zero proof of identity like a birth certificate/social so they're not alive yet to the government until theyve been birthed. If this was really a thing it would have to fall under the mothers insurance but I still see no reason for that either.
You probably can buy insurance for the unborn if you are willing to pay enough. Unlike insuring children after birth, providing life insurance for the unborn would be extremely risky. Therefore, an insurance company may charge a 15% a month premium. Are you willing to pay a $1000 a month premium for a $10,000 life insurance policy? I didn't think so. Instead, you want them to give you a life insurance policy and insurance companies will not do that because losing money is bad business.
The state shouldn't be involved in child support other than to enforce any written agreement between the man and the woman. Otherwise, whoever has custody should pay all the expenses.You're correct - to a point. What was the exact date of conception? That's when those things you mentioned need to start, not 6 weeks, 10 weeks, or 4 months later on. That's the reason insurance, and other costs/benefits start on the date of birth. That's something that CAN be verified and validated easily.
If you don''t consider it having a life you would naturally ensure to correct any pregnant woman who calls her fetus "my baby" and of course you also think if its a baby the father should naturally be able to go court to get her to let him spend time with his child even if she don't like the idea of course. You totally included in things you would want riight? And if the baby happen to be born on a day he has the child she should not be able to denie him to be present while she gives birth, you know a extremely important detail if you consider the fetus as having a life
You might be able to find cover for it.
It’s not necessarily unavailable because of a philosophical reason. Insurance companies might simply not have an interest in that. It could simply be exactly to avoid getting in the mud of politics because of questions like this. I think many companies will simply set the minimum age to be 2 and then just shut their mouth.I mean... I doubt you could get an insurance policy to cover an infant, and most child's policies are designed to cover medical and funeral expenses... unlike life insurance for adults, which is designed to secure the family in case of the loss of a breadwinner.
Child support before the child is born doesn't make much sense when there isn't that much more expenses compared to when it's born... and uh, I dunno why you'd want to incentivise people to break up while they're pregnant.If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks, is that when child support starts? Is that when paid maternity leave starts? Can I insure at 6 months and collect if I miscarry? Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carry an American citizen? I just figured if we're doing this, we go all in.
Across Europe and most of the United States, fetishide is a crime if not committed by the mother.
Fetuses inherit properties. Fetuses have rights. However, these rights to inherit and the right to life only have it if the pregnancy is completed and the fetus turns into a child. So you can't make life insurance for a fetus.Actually, the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic men's fraternal society, has an insurance program which covers unborn children.
That would give space for modern assassin-mothers to get money from their being inhuman.
Faking a traumatic abortion can be relatively easy, and getting money from an abortion would be a cinch for some disgusting humans infesting our society.Not necessarily. Many risk are NOT insurable, and generally people don't insure the lives of children because they are not productive members financially, so there is nothing to really insure against.
A fetus is definitely a life at conception, because it has a UNIQUE genetic profile distinct from that of its mother. If someone does NOT recognize that, then they must never convict anyone in a court of law on DNA evidence.In the UK a fetal heartbeat can be detected at 6 weeks but is not classed as a viable life until 23 weeks, I think the reason for not being able to take insurance out is because of the risk. The fetus simply isn't evolved enough at that stage for any intervention to be made. As sad as it is for the people involved it's just a harsh reality of nature
Until the baby is born there is no financial support needed. I'm sure that you could get life insurance on a baby before it is born, you can get insurance on anything, you may not be able to afford the premium because insurance premiums are set on risk factors. Most life insurance policies have waiting periods anyway, so probably wouldn't be practical for the expense of the premium.
I find it funny how many people are pro life especially men but they're the one's usually accusing you of cheating, really want details as to whether the baby was conceived with them. Really want you to abort and take responsibility for it too
That’s interesting...🤔.. there are many medical expenses/tests that are incurred before a child is born to ensure it’s health and safety. These costs should be at least shared.
You miss the point of insurance. The point of it is that in case something bad happens to you the mother, the child will be taken care of.
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!