Shouldn’t child support also start from before the child is born? (A paternity test can be done at 8weeks) I’m just curious if a baby is considered life at conception why should a woman have to wait until birth to claim certain benefits?
If a fetus is considered as having life at conception, then shouldn’t I be able to take out life insurance on my unborn baby?
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.
I c ur points. But a car that hasn’t been built yet is not classified as a car. The root of my argument is pretty much when does a baby get classified as a baby. It’s it’s this living thing before it’s born that has a right to life then to people that r pro choice... is it a baby? Ur car example is a really good one. But by that logic then it’s not a baby with rights until born. And children die. So if a father is lying child support and then the child dies do u also believe he should receive a portion of his child support back?
Well, as in many of your others comments from other people out really depends on the states and courts what is considered a life. Some put age of the pregnancy or there has to be a heartbeat. Some states don't charge a person with a double murder or manslaughter charge of the mother or infant is killed because they don't consider the unborn a person yet.
I believe that he should get his child support payments back for an unborn infant that never gets born yes. But up until that point he should split half the costs of the doctor visits and everything for the baby. But, child support for an unborn infant is a little far out there. As long as he is helping with the beginning costs he shouldn't have to pay anything before the birth. That is like going back to the car, if it took 9 months to build your car do you think that you should have to make the car payments before you get the car?
Ok. Yes I get what ur saying. I suppose my points for child support is for the men that get a woman pregnant and then bails during the pregnancy. They know it’s their kid and does want the child. But changes their mind at the 3rd month or something.
Yes, you definitely need to take his ass to court for child support once the baby is born. Take his ass to the cleaners. I hate dead beat dads. There are things a person can bail on in life and it really doesn't matter, but when it comes to a child. That is completely unacceptable to abandon a life that they helped create and bring into this world and depends on love and support to survive in this world. Fuck that guy. I hope his junk rots and falls off.
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.
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.
@NoManTwo You are still a father whether you like it or not (hypothetically speaking). Since you’re not ready to take on the responsibilities, then you should’ve covered up your willy and you would not be in that predicament, SO you must pay.
My logic is more for ill defined relationships and one night stands. It's far too convenient to say "oh, he should have worn a condom" when that was a joint decision, just like sleeping together was. Most women I've slept with don't want condoms worn, @ez-bri-z hit closest to the mark of the point I'm trying to get across.
Two people made an irresponsible decision. One path is abortion, to avoid any responsibility and consequences of that decision, another would be to try raising a child together, with the last being to have a kid and cut the guy out of the picture except as a supplementary source of income. There's only one situation in there where the guy has any input aside from abstaining from sex. No birth control is 100% even if used.
Marriage is a different beast. There should be no avoiding child support in a relationship that is designed to form a family. Likewise there should be input from the husband on whether a potential child gets to live or not. Not all relationships or situations are the same. Any life-threatening situation towards the mother should be her decision alone, as any health related decision is.
I'd say one more provision to put in is if a woman goes to a shelter to seek refuge from abuse, both any input or contact the guy would have had on any decisions get nullified. There have been women I've known who have snapped out of the pattern of abusive relationships because suddenly they had a life other than their own to worry about, likewise I've seen women stick with that and teach a new generation of boys and girls that abuse is the right way to handle disputes in a relationship. That's one cycle I'd like to see end from whatever pressure could be brought against it.
Add those in, and I'd say that you'd see a lot of the states trying to ban abortion right now reaching compromise pretty quickly. They are trying to please voters after all, and a good negotiation is one where both parties feel they have lost, but can be satisfied with the outcome.
@Giselleselfish it was her choice to let an uncovered "willy" inside her - assumption of the risk. If she wants unilateral control over the decision to abort she should also have unilateral responsibility for the costs associated with her decision. I agree her body her say-but also her say, her pay.
I still don't get why some guys think this way. It isn't a get out of jail free card if she choose to keep the baby and the guy doesn't want it. They both made that decision together. She allowed it to happen and he chose to do it.
Mutual. Decision.
Now that she is pregnant, the decision is hers on what to do with her body. She can take on the responsibilities and go through the toll that motherhood brings. Once men can carry the child then it can be his decision too.
Once the decision is made, they are BOTH on the hook for supporting this child. You act as if all the money is coming from him and she is doing nothing in contribution. She gives up time, finances, stress on her body as well as other resources. Absentee fathers drop a check in the mail. Pretty sure there is no comparison here.
@Ez-Bri-Z Absentee fathers who do pay were kicked out of the picture. There is very little in the way of legal ramifications to simply bail and say "not my problem". Most women I know who did get abortions wind up getting back with the same guy they got pregnant with, having a baby neither of them can afford, he bails, and that kid is in for one bumpy ass ride.
In most states not paying is a criminal offense. Most guys I've been in holding cells with were there for not paying child support, backlogged for years, they show up in front of the judge, spin a tale, put up a couple hundred bucks, quit their job so the pay doesn't get docked, and move. They didn't and don't want any part of it, so they avoid it. It's ridiculous to think that people won't do illegal or immoral things simply because "they shouldn't" much like if abortion was illegal it would simply be more expensive and harder to find.
You are 41 years old. Do you not remember some of the brilliant decisions you made in your 20s that in retrospect were pushed by emotion and an utter lack of logic? You may be older and wiser now, but the laws and judgements going into effect really don't have any repercussions on me, or you.
The women I have sex with I'm ready to have a kid with, hell, I'm expecting another right now. Likewise, what would you rate the chances of you, yourself actually being faced with a decision of abortion or chasing childcare yourself now, or in the future?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I thought you were after both men and women having more personal responsibility for their actions. It seems I assumed wrong as you only want men to be more accountable, for as you said, Mutual. Decision. Would you say a woman who has and abandons a child with the father should pay child support as well as go to jail if she does not pay it?
Actually in my 20s I was just like I am now whether you believe it or not. I was not given an option to make the decision to abort or not because life found it hilarious to take my ability to carry children away. Had I the opportunity though no, I wouldn't have done it.
My problem with what was being said here was this idea that if a woman chooses to keep the baby that the guy should be able to get off the hook for paying. I fully disagree. My other problem is saying the onus lies on the woman to make sure all birth control is in place. That's wrong too. That responsibility is on both parties.
@Ez-Bri-Z A lot of men and women want to have their cake and eat it too. It's unfortunate, families generate wealth and stability. Sorry to hear you never had that chance, but isn't that the way of things? The meth-head down the road has five kids with no idea who the dad is (or conversely how many baby momma's), an in-law having them thinking kids will be great for "tax-breaks" and people who actually try having difficulty, or an inability to produce offspring.
Y do u believe only irresponsable people r getting pregnant. people get raped, teens get groomed by family members or older adults. Assault happens. When people look down on abortion they look down and disagree with all abortion. How does anyone knows what lead to a woman getting pregnant and feeling the need to have to abort.
@zed-789 I don't think only irresponsible people are getting pregnant. I have children of my own, and that was something planned, you know, as much as you can plan or prepare for a kid. I look down on it as a mechanism to escape responsibility from actions and consequences for both men and women. It's people with medical issues from pregnancy, blighted ovum, entopic pregnancy, and irresponsible people getting abortions.
If someone is groomed, they have no freedom of choice, period. If they were raped by a family member, they need to report that and simply get the morning after pill. Only half of women who get pregnant from rape do get an abortion, with the odd line-up of being almost the exact same amount that does not seek medical attention after the fact. It's an even split of 1/3 who keep the kids, and 1/3 who don't know they're pregnant until the second trimester as well. Add to that miscarriage rate of 11% and adoption rate of 5. It's more common to be assaulted, whether it be rape, or any other violence by someone you know, most likely a family member.
Completely separate from abortion, if you don't do anything to stop that over a period of time, you are giving implicit consent by surrendering your own ability to make choices day by day. The word "groomed" is over-used, escalating small requests into blackmail and violence, that is grooming, whether an individual or group. Someone older dating/screwing someone younger who is simply insecure is not.
None of it matters anyway, no facts, feelings, or even the tearful stories. There are two deeply entrenched sides who will not compromise. One says no abortion ever, it is murder, the other says anywhere anytime, only she has input. Neither side will listen to the other, much less try to get along or understand. They'll simply escalate until both sides lose as is happening now.
I love how casually you just brushed aside rape there. Just report it and get the morning after pill? Its not just that easy. You're making it sound like a minor inconvenience like having to go to the DMV. It is a traumatic experience where victims can't always get to someone to report it, are afraid of hurting or losing their families for reporting it or afraid of retaliation for saying anything.
It is not complicit consent of any kind if they can't stop it. It is not consent at all.
Grooming is a different beast. It never has to resort to blackmail or violence ever. If someone finds a person, especially a vulnerable, naive underage person and starts showering them with gifts and then slowly starts testing the boundaries and lowering inhibitions of their target, that is still grooming.
As for sides being drawn, the simplest solution is this: if you don't want an abortion then don't get one, but stop legislating the rights of others to get one regardless of their reasoning. It is not your call.
I agree with u to a certain extent. But I have never heard anyone decide to get an abortion because having a baby is “to hard” and they r trying to avoid the responsibilities. U nor I have no idea the amount of teens who get pregnant, rape or assault victims who get pregnant and get abortions compared to th amount of “I just don’t want a baby so delete the fetus” not everyone out here is taking a survey or is participating in studies for us to have an accurate view of who any of these women r. Furthermore, y should having a child be a form of punishment for unprotected sex? I’m not on either side because I do understand where ur coming from having kids. But ur kids were wanted. What happens when an unwanted kid is born? Who is there for them? Who is helping them? Do they just get dropped off at an orphanage? Do they stay in the family didn't want them and get abused? And noting after pill fails a lot. (I have 2 nieces a nephew AND a little brother that’s is 20 years younger than me because morning after fails. My whole post was to show that many people only care about a woman KEEPING a fetus and baby. But don’t care about the actual fetus or baby or the fact that it becomes a human being who needs at least 18 years of help and guidance in the world. If ur against abortions that is great but what is being done to offer women a safety net that if they find themselves in a bad situation so they can stray away from making the choice to not keep a baby? Because shame and ridicule is not helping. Also who r the women that r doing these studies to show that they r just out here tossing pregnancies away? Do u know of any? Because in all my years of living I know of no woman and none of the women I know know if any other women that have ever been apart of these research that claim that women r out here getting abortions just to avoid responsibilities. So either the info is fabricated or the sample size is small.
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.
I just think that if people r going to be against abortion. That is fine but y not treat the fetus as one that has rights. There is child insurance so y not unborn baby insurance or something. Lol it could cover funeral cost if a woman miscarries late term.
As I said, if insurance companies thought they could make money off of that, they'd already be offering policies. Even if they did, it wouldn't lend any credibility to the "life at conception" discussion.
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.
So if men and women decide to get kids and when these kids are born, they should be legally force to look after these kids or pay child support. So of course no man should be force to pay child support if he told you that he does not want since the beginning of the pregnancy but you still dont get abortion but if he wants the kid till the birth of the kid but decide to leave the kid and you after kid is born, he should pay child support since you dont get abortion because of himnand listen to him
Yes I did not know either. I found out because my sister was pregnant and we asked the doctor a about the process of finding out the gender of a baby. And it lead to the conversation that u can also get a paternity test done before birth. It’s more expensive than a typical paternity test. But only like $100 more. So it’s still relatively affordable.
I didn’t ask about the exact procedure. But I believe it must be th same way they check to c if ur baby has a disability. At 13 or 16 weeks they stick a needle in ur belly button and take some fluid and they can test to c if u baby might come out with a disability. But don’t take my word for it. If u goggle it u would get way more info than what I can offer. There is also surprisingly a lot of places that offer the testings.
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.
@NoManTwo it's not about abortion. I'm just stating how it goes down. Doctors say the baby isn't alive until it hits air. That's why birth certificates state time of birth
Like I'm pregnant right now but I'd only consider this baby a part of me. Not necessarily living and breathing on their own. I'm doing all those thing for the baby
@NoManTwo you'd be surprised by how much of a dick obgyn doctors are. They convince women that they need genetic test so they could terminate the pregnancy if the baby had down syndrome or other genetic issues. I've turned it down with every pregnancy and they continue to bug me every appointment about it. I'm convinced most of them dont have souls. Especially the women doctors in my experience have been the worst. Men seem to have more sympathy towards pregnancy than women.
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.
Why? Other than medical expenses, there's usually very little needed during pregnancy.
You're making the assumption he won't/isn't involved with raising the child, and will instantly become "deadbeat" dad. The vast majority of guys aren't!
@susjusm I don't know about better country because people risk their lives to come to the US and abandon friends and families all the time to come here. They could not risk their lives and go to the “better” countries u speak off. So I don't know y anyone is coming here. And yes I do believe in men being able to opt out of child support if they made it clear they did not intend to have a child or do not want children. I will say this, if a man doesn’t want a child with a woman they need to convey that. Some men like to make it seems like women trapped them into fatherhood. But using a condom or getting a vasectomy could have easily made the problem avoidable. But for the sake of keeping on topic. If a man wants to opt out of child support I believe both parties should go tor court and prove that either the woman did trap him with a child or the man lied about wanting a family. In this day and age of technology getting old text messages can easily show what is going on.
@zed-789 it's not gonna be possible to prove weather or not he was traped. It's not even the point because it's the women's choice if she keeps the child. Why should men not be able to opt out when women can. What if a men wants a child and the women then aborts it? Should she pay reparations to him?
@susjsm well y not? I mean if u and a woman came to an agreement that u both wanted children. She gets pregnant and decides she wants to abandon the idea. Maybe u should get paid some type of reparation. U can’t carry a child and wanted one. She had u believe she wanted a child as well. If I’ve invested in the relationship and in the pregnancy, y not sue her?
@zed-789 just because someone doesn't want kids now doesn't mean they might not later. I was thinking about accidents and if she tricks him. If she decides she doesn't want it after that's fine he can have a baby with someone else. You can't not pay child support though.
@Susjsm But unless ur a celebrity or some millionaire or something... y r regular men getting in relationships that they r being tricked into fatherhood? Can u give me an example of how a guy can be tricked? Because I don’t think is a regular occurrence but then again, I’m not a guy... so I don’t know.
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
I don’t think many women would deny a father his child unless he is abusive. And the father is allowed to be there at birth. He has to sign the birth certificate after all.
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.
You have to change your point of view. You can take out insurance for your pregnancy. But the subject of the insurance is the pregnancy and not the unborn fetus.
Until the child is born, the father is not obliged to give anything to the mother. The father has duties only towards his son since he is born, that is, he exists as an entity in its own right. The father has and will never have any rights or duties towards the mother, but it has duties only toward child. Unless the child's father and mother are married.
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.
No men should be able to completely opt out of child support like in the Netherlands. The women CHOOSES to have a baby. So it's her responsibility alone.
Legally, you can take a policy out on a fetus but the risk of the child losing his/her life in the womb or at birth is relatively high so the premiums would be higher for a pre-born than a newborn. If you terminated the pregnancy while you have a policy on the fetus, the insurance provider could press charges since you were responsible for the loss.
Yes, medical visits, food (because the mother’s diet affects the baby), transportation, because not all women drive or may be able to drive themselves during pregnancy for various reasons and they need to get to their doctor visits some how. Stuff like that. I think if it took 2 to make a baby then it should be coming from both sides financially to make sure that the mother is taken care off because that directly affects the baby. This way many women won’t have to rely on government aid.
Well I brought that up because there is life insurance for children. If u can have a life insurance policy on a baby, y not pre birth? Is it still not a baby? Just one that hasn’t been born yet? R they saying a child doesn’t count as being a child until birth?
Life insurance for children is cheap, and it covers funeral costs. So I think you'd be jumping the gun if you took out a policy like that before the baby is born.
Plus life insurance money is used for things like paying for a funeral. If a woman miscarries late term maybe they would like to have a nice funeral for their baby. Maybe the mom needs therapy to cope with the loss. I do not think most women would think dead baby= rich. Plus there could be a clause set in place so women can’t just have an abortion and claim the funds.
@zed-789 women choose to have babies they can just as well not have them. It's their responsibility alone. Men shouldn't pay anything at all if they don't want.
@daisyjones why should anyone except crazy feminist and dependant women support her crazy ideas? WOMEN CHOOSE TO HAVE KIDS THEY DON'T NEED TO. THEY CAN JUST AS WELL NOT HAVE THEM. Men should never be forced just like in more progressive countries like the Netherlands. You little girl. If you want everything payed then nobody is going to take you serious. You clearly aren't at the same level of men who actually have to take responsibility for shit.
interesting question. different question: why is "my body, my choice" a thing, when really it's a separate life and not "your body"?
2
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
I don’t care personally but if I want an abortion and my bm wants to have the baby I’m not paying child support that should be the next step with feminism and equality
That's so cringe lol you stuck your dick in her why should you go on without consequence. Choices have repercussions people we learned this in like pre-k 😂
Parents have an insurable interest in their children, and tragically children die just like adults. Having life insurance on children to cover final expenses in case of death is responsible financial planning. Moreover, it locks in low premiums for the life of the child. Whole life policies accumulate dividends and additional paid up insurance, and becomes an asset that can be borrowed against or surrendered for cash value. Responsible parents insure their children from infancy. They don’t plan a child’s death, but don’t want to be in a financial bind if it happens. Dying isn’t cheap these days.
I think you're confusing pre-funding a pre-planned funeral with life insurance. It doesn't matter to me who foots the bill. If a family wants to set aside savings or otherwise has the means to fund final expenses out of pocket, that's fine. But suggesting having life insurance on a child to protect a parent from financial hardship in case of death should be illegal is just absurd. I've handled arrangements for seven children this year (including two stillborns), most had policies ranging from $15-30K on their children. Most policies for children are capped at $50K anyway, nobody is really going to profit from it. What I think should be illegal is starting a GoFundMe or otherwise crowdfunding final expenses, because lack of planning (whether they insure a child or set aside money in savings for such contingencies) on their part does not constitute a reason for me to donate money.
@SaoirseS Prefunding is dollar for dollar; right? And that's okay as well, but I was suggesting more of an insurance-like concept offered by the funeral homes.
@Jamie05rhs. You've got the right idea, but funeral homes are in most states prohibited from selling whole life and term life policies. We may broker what are called pre-need policies in the process of pre-arranging funerals. This is pretty common with aging clients who want to pre-plan and pre-fund their own funerals so that their final wishes are honored, and to take the burden off surviving family for planning (and paying for) their final expenses. Frankly, some do it because they don't trust their children to honor their wishes and make no bones telling me that. But by law, all funds for a prearranged funeral must be placed in a third party trust (usually a life insurance company that maintains a Funeral Assurance Trust) and the policy becomes irrevocable. The total cost of the funeral is paid up front, and all benefits are assigned to the funeral home on death, meaning accrued dividends and interest go to the funeral home as well as a hedge against inflation. Any remaining funds are paid to the next of kin. Costs of burial funerals have gone up dramatically over the years, and families who lose a child and have no insurance on them are often limited to what they can afford, not what they want. Some have trouble coming up with $2,450 for direct cremation.
@Jamie05rhs. No problem. I have no direct interest in the insurance business, only an indirect one much like a body shop has in repairing collision damage. I want to provide customers the services they want, but they're often limited to what they can afford and have to cut corners. How they finance final arrangements are up to them, but anticipated life insurance proceeds (if they have them, and the limits on their budgets if they don't) often drive the business end of it. A modest burial funeral with a mid-price casket is going to cost around $9K, plus the cost of burial plots, burial vaults. opening and closing a grave, grave markers, etc. Most people I encounter don't have that readily available (or if they do, it's earmarked for something else). My "bias" against GoFundMe is about the same as I have for big name charities like Red Cross, Wounded Warriors, etc. If I'm going to give, I want all my money to go to whatever cause. GoFundMe makes about $100M a year just being throughput, not to mention the slice credit card companies get. And personally, like I said, those who start a GoFundMe to fund funeral expenses because someone doesn't have life insurance just (to me) reflects poor financial planning. That's just my opinion. But it seems strange to me that a GoFundMe for parents of a child who died with no insurance can raise over $70K (one locally just surpassed that amount), giving them over $50K of money with no tax consequences to spend as they please, and that seems fine with everyone. But having $30K leftover to pay off debt, or re-purpose for a surviving child's education, etc., is not. Strange.
@Jamie05rhs. Why thank you for the kind words, Jamie. I'm not trying to change your mind or opinion, just offering perspective. I own and operate three family-owned funeral homes in a pretty good size Midwest metro area. Had you asked me even when in college if I planned to carry on the family funeral home business, I'd have said not only no, but hell no to the tenth power. But my graduation from college came at a time when my dad wanted to retire, and since I wanted to own and operate my own business it seemed a logical move. It's been an acquired taste, but I've reached the point where now that I've been in it I can't see myself doing anything else. It fulfills both my business interest and my altruistic streak. That and it allowed my dad to retire after 40+ years in the business, so he can call me while wandering in the Western US in an RV and tell me about his fishing trips and how much it must suck to be me!
Why would insurance companies want to insure the life of an unborn child when nearly a million of them are murdered by their own mothers in the US every year?
Because she can change her mind and legally kill her child at any time. Insuring the baby would obviously be a very unwise choice for insurance companies.
Illegal is not the best word to use. I should have said inaccessible because having heavy restrictions does not mean a woman can just walk in an abort a baby. It is not happening on the wide scale the media really portrays it to be.
If you could in fact insure your unborn, I’m sure the insurance companies would be smart enough to put some sort of clause in it that would nullify the policy should the woman get an abortion. Like they do with already born people and suicide. Policy is canceled.
silly question... a baby in utero doesn't need diapers, food, clothes or anything else... the mother needs all of these things, and He should be there helping.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(45 Plus)
+1 y
Life is life. Individual cells are life. Ask a better question.
you apply that to politicians and he hits the nail square on the head. i follow progressive news outlets and msnbc--i agree with them on most things--save things like weed and abortion and i have no problem pointing out their hypocrisy on weed yet, will go on and on about the tobacco company, opioids, e-cigarettes like one i often agree with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiouF4jThnE --they do the same damn thing with weed... but that's as far as it goes. the democrats are no better than the republicans... it's just the republicans allowed the democrats to be the morally upright party.
I'm pro-life. Yeah, that's fine. If you want to pay x amount of dollars per month to insure your unborn child, that's fine. And if the child dies, you get y. However, if you abort the child, you don't get y obviously. It has to be natural causes.
I think some women that get abortions does so because they feel they r unable to take care of a child alone. Which in some cases is true. Is it morally right to bring a child into th world if they will have a bad life? I don’t know. My point was at what point do we consider and unborn child a baby? And at what point to the benefits we have the options of getting for children able to be applied.
Home > Society & Politics > Questions > If a fetus is considered as having life at conception, then shouldn’t I be able to take out life insurance on my unborn baby?
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
Opinion Owner+1 y
