I figured out how to solve the Abortion Problem

[jmowreader]

The problem with the anti-abortion bills wending their way through Red America is that they don't have anything in them holding the fathers accountable. "But we have Child Support laws already!" Yeah, they work REAL well. :sarcasm:

Welcome to the Urologist Enrichment Act.

Under the provisions of the Urologist Enrichment Act, a woman has 20 months, 29 days, from the date of the act of procreation (which means any time prior to the child's first birthday) to request that a man who she believes to be the father submit to DNA testing. The cost of this testing will be set at $50, half of which will be assessed to the mother, half to the presumed father. Should said testing prove that the tested man is indeed the father, the mother may then request the father assume custody of the child.

This law is called the Urologist Enrichment Act because after a few men who didn't want to use condoms because "they take all the fun out of sex" find out that they have to take their children home and raise them to adulthood (which REALLY takes all the fun out of sex), and word gets around that they're serious about this, urology will suddenly become the most lucrative medical specialty as millions of horny young men who don't want to raise the results of their one-night stands line up for quickie vasectomies.

[johnnie]

1. I have a question

Since you brought it up.

I get the part about the man not wanting to use a condom because "(which REALLY takes all the fun out of sex)", but then shouldn't the man be charged with rape? If the man doesn't want to use a condom, why would the woman consent to sex if she doesn't want to get pregnant or get an STD?

[BlackHeart]

2. Wouldn't the woman

have a choice as to whether the man wore a condom or not?

[johnnie]

3. I don't know if the woman would have that choice

But she certainly has a choice to tell the man she isn't going to have sex if he doesn't wear one.

[hatebushhalilaura]

4. men

what do you guys think of these "mens right to choose" groups?

[johnnie]

6. Ultimately it is the woman's choice

This whole thing with the "mens right to choose" is a completely different issue in my opinion. That is more of a child support issue.

I personally think that in some cases a man can be helpful to a woman in helping to make a choice. But I still believe it is the woman's choice in the end.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi BlackHeart!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[lastliberalintexas]

5. I've posted similar before, but none of the men in these groups seem

willing to do that. The easy way to eliminate your child support payments is to have custody of the kid and get support payments from the woman (who of course tricked them into this in the first place- it wasn't even the man's idea to have sex and they were forced- almost raped- into impregnating her). So far being the custodial parent doesn't seem to be catching on amongst the woman haters. :shrug:

[johnnie]

7. I'd do it

Why wouldn't I?

[Coexist]

8. Wow - not just money - but "losing their freedom"

by having to assume responsibility.

I hear zippers going up all across the country!!

LOL!

[jmowreader]

9. Exactly. And that's the point.

Right now, there isn't really any reason for the man to wear a rubber.

Yes, we talk AIDS and STDs...but go look at the statistics on AIDS. It is FAR more likely that a woman will catch HIV from a man than a man catch it from a woman. (We put out that "men catch HIV from women as easily as from men" to protect women, not men--a guy is only going to wear a rubber if there's something in it for him. Pregnancy didn't work. VD didn't work. Herpes didn't even work and you'd think that would. "This can kill you" worked, but too many men are immortal.)

And how many men are in arrears on their child support? I gotta guy working for me who pays child support to ten different women, and the only reason he does it is that it's garnished from his pay. I'm not kidding: ten women. And two of them were stupid enough to do him twice--he's got 12 kids. I HAD a guy working for me paying child support to five women in New York, two in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania. And in five months, make that six women in New York. (He transferred back to New York because traveling from Fayetteville to NYC for child support hearings was getting expensive.) Everyone here probably has a similar story to tell.

The sick part of those two guys is that if they weren't working for a company that's real proactive on child support enforcement, they wouldn't pay a nickel. If they didn't have garnishment as a means of collection, a LOT of guys wouldn't pay child support at all. You think "seizing of bank accounts" is gonna stop them? I can walk into any bank in America and cash my paycheck for a small fee. I can go to the post office and get money orders to pay my bills. You do not need a bank account in America. And you think "seizing of tax refunds" is gonna stop them? Yeah, right.

But make these morans actually RAISE the children they father, and shit will change in a hurry.

[mondo joe]

10. If you just apply this within the first trimester of pregnancy you could

instead be asked whether he will pay support or relinquish all rights and interest.

In the latter case the pregnant woman could choose to abort, surrender for adoption, or raise the child on her own.

Right?

[jmowreader]

12. Wrong.

Completely and totally wrong.

Go up a few posts to the comment I made about the men who work for me who have fathered vast numbers of children. Were they given the choice of paying support or relinquishing all rights and interest, they'd be relinquishin' kinda guys.

I actually see three options here. The first is to relinquish all rights and interest and just walk away. The second is to pay child support. The third option is to marry the mother. Forget the second option--it would be no more expensive and much more satisfying to get married.

There are four endpoints to your scenario:

1) Shotgun wedding
2) Abortion--the option which, thanks to Bush's gift that keeps on giving, is rapidly becoming extinct in large parts of America
3) Surrender for adoption
4) Raise the child without any help from the sperm donor

Which of those options would encourage a horny young man to wrap up his dick? I don't see one, and that's the whole point of this exercise: to get guys to quit knocking up women indiscriminately. The possibility of having to take the child home and raise it yourself would do this.

I have been told that there is a certain percentage of the female population who uses wile and chicanery to get pregnant--poking holes in guys' rubbers, claiming to be on the pill when they're not, that kind of thing. (In the childfree community we call this "oopsing.") I'm certain that a subset of this group would oops a guy she had something against so she could present him with a baby. And I'm not really certain how to proceed with this case--adoption is always there, I guess...