The Maternal Lien: A Real World Solution to Abortion

Below, I make the trespass analogy to abortion, and then use necessity as a defense to that trespass. But there was on doctrine I mention: that a trespasser must still reimburse the owner for the damage caused by the trespass. If some similar doctrine were applied to abortion, it could seriously curb the abortion rate in this country, while possibly curing problems of senior citizen care.

I propose the following; a Maternal Lien. Upon a child reaching majority, every natural mother would have a right from their natural child a certain amount of money, a debt arising purely from gestation of that person as a child. For example, (1) In 1984, mother bears and delivers child, (2) In 2005, child reaches majority, (3) Child now owes mother $20,000, accruing at 4%; child now has to pay mother approximately $83.00 a month for forty years. Thus a mother would not have an abortion out of pure greed, while a fetus would have a definite, substantive basis for his "right to life".

Q: Isn’t it a little heartless for a mother to demand money from her child?

A: Perhaps. Yet it’s also heartless for a mother to suck a baby’s brains out or drown it in salt water before it has a chance to live. Besides, it is a common assertion that children have the duty to provide for their parents. This law would simply codify that principle

Q: Wouldn’t that encourage mothers to have tons of children, regardless of how they’re reared, and for those children to do the same, resulting in some sort of motherhood ponzi racket?

A: Thus it is important to make the amount just right. Too much would encourage prolific, irresponsible breeding. Too little would not be much incentive or reimburse the mother.

Q: What about the father?

A: Remember, we are reimbursing for gestation only, i.e. not aborting the pregnancy. Also, reimbursement to men can conceive literally thousands of children; women only a few, thus causing the ponzi racket problem. And besides, this will encourage male fidelity: If they are to enjoy the benefits of having children, they are going to need to live with their mate.

Q: The kind of women who get unwanted pregnancies are not the kind of women who think in terms of the time value of money. They’re not going to wait 21 years for a measly $80 to dribble in. What’s the incentive to forego the abortion now for money later.

A: Discounting. Suppose a mother has the right an annuity of $960.00 per year in 21 years. A bank does some financial calculations and determines the present value of that right is $10500.00. They offer the woman $9,000.00 for their right in her maternal lien. She accepts and forgoes the abortion. The woman gets instant gratification, while the bank gets a great cashflow stream.

Think it could work? Let me know