My thoughts are some parents might then not ask for assistance and thre kids will go hungry

I think government funded long term birth control for people on welfare is a good idea, if it is voluntary.

1.No government assistance beyond the first child.

Once is a young girl's folly.
Twice is a "lifestyle choice".

2. Free genetic testing for any man accused of paternity.
3. Ability to cease and sue at any time if paternity test comes up negative.

There - fixed that for you... At least as best as can be done through law rather than values.

NicoleK: Why should it be voluntary? These people are having children they cannot afford and often do not want. Yet they expect the government to take my money and give it to them. Why not keep them from having children until they are able to support them?

All birth control comes with health risks, and I don't think the government should be up in people's health choices.

I believe enough people will take the free birth control to make it worthwhile.

Yeah, but you don't want tons of starving kids out there either, Ben.

I like the idea of the free paternity tests, but they should be voluntary, some people wouldn't want a government database of their DNA.

The thing about those paternity tests is that they're pretty much worthless if the judge says that you still have to pay for child support even if that's not your kid because reasons:

https://nypost.com/2017/07/23/man-ordered-to-pay-65k-in-child-support-for-kid-who-isnt-his/

"I believe enough people will take the free birth control to make it worthwhile." NicoleK

It's free or very cheap right now in the States, yet we still have this problem. "I don't think the government should be up in people's health choices." Having children is not a "health choice." It is not a choice at all for people who do not take some type of birth control action.

I don't think the government should up in people's personal financial decisions by taking their money and giving it to people who haven't earned it and have shown a complete lack of responsibility. These people want the "right" to have as many children as they want, but expect everyone else to bear the "responsibility" of supporting them. With rights come responsibilities.

Free birth control does nothing. It isn't effective NicleK.

Money doesn't make you a parent. Percentile of income child support laws don't work. You don't magically have a dad's influence by taking his money while getting rid of him.

As far as kids going hungry in the US, nutritious enough food is so cheap these days child hunger is almost solely a result of drug abuse. The better solution to child hunger is to take people's kids away when they cannot provide the basic necessities. If you can't feed your kids you aren't a parent and someone else should take care of those kids.

As for garnishing SS benefits, pointless.

Just a little story, Amy. I remember a while ago, I sent you a picture of one of my sisters and her four kids. Her husband was a mean man, and when she finally woke up to this and divorced him, he quit his job (his career, toward which he was working toward retirement) and became a bartender. Since bartenders make the bulk of their money through tips, he got out of paying child support because he (reportedly) didn't make enough money.

Ben David: 1.No government assistance beyond the first child.

I like this idea.

Ben David: 2. Free genetic testing for any man accused of paternity.

3. Ability to cease and sue at any time if paternity test comes up negative.

The government wouldn't go for this. They want a child paid for, and they don't want to do it. So, they're perfectly fine with men having to pay for a child that isn't theirs.

> Wouldn't they be a big savings
> in the long run?

Righteous public life isn't ONLY about saving money for this-or-that person. Policy isn't judge SOLELY by how much money it saves me.

(Note the strategic use of capital letters for emphasis.)

(Your brilliant idea for a gummint project gets a LOT more enthusiasm if it doesn't mean taking money from one person to give to someone else, with the government's typical handling fees_)

If we're going to hold the financial future of non-custodial parents hostage like this, then let's take that idea all the way. The custodial parent should be required to document, with bills and receipts, that all support money received is spent on the child's needs. I've told this story here before, but when I was about 10 and we were living in a divorce-court apartment complex, I have a friend who lost a scholarship to a good private school because of attendance. His bitch-whore mother blew the child support checks on drinking and partying, and she couldn't be bothered to drag her sorry ass out of bed in the morning to drive him to school. He eventually ran away. I don't know what happened to him.

Of course, this modest proposal means that many deadbeat dads will have to endure late retirement, but that seems a lot fairer than burdening taxpayers.

That assumes these "deadbeat dads" are earning enough to contribute to Social Security. Most likely, they'll be getting the default minimum or spending their retirement years in some sort of state institution.

Since the question of paternity fraud has already been raised, I'll take a different swat at the hornet's nest: financial abortion.

If a woman has the sole right to determine whether or not the child is carried to term, why should a man be compelled in any way to support a child he did not consent to father? Shouldn't he have the ability to sever any tie?

If a woman has the sole right to determine whether or not the child is carried to term, why should a man be compelled in any way to support a child he did not consent to father? Shouldn't he have the ability to sever any tie? ~ Criticas at March 4, 2019 8:26 AM

Ay, there's the rub.

For the man to decide he does not want the child the woman wants, the woman is consigned to nine months of pregnancy and eighteen years of child support -- financial, emotional, and physical.

For the woman to decide she will bear the child the man has rejected, the man is consigned to eighteen years of financial support, at a minimum.

So, which has the greater claim on the right to arbitrarily opt the other one out?

NicoleK: I believe enough people will take the free birth control to make it worthwhile.

I learned from working in a homeless shelter for families, and in community clinics and free clinics:

For women with little or no money birth control can be gotten for little or no cost. They may know they need it, and want it; and many do take advantage of free and low cost services.

But others live their lives from minute to minute by impulse. Their lives consist of 99% what happens to them and 1% what they're motivated enough to plan - and those plans seldom extend beyond the present day. They need more incentives to motivate them to do something that takes as much future orientation, discipline and time as simply walking into a clinic and asking for free contraceptives.

Offering them $25 cash to receive Depo-Provera or $250 cash to receive Nexplanon would motivate a lot of them to stay focused enough to go through the process.

A lot of them would use the money to buy drugs. So what? It would be a lot cheaper than supporting generations of babies that result from using sex to buy drugs. And a lot less life-long misery for the babies.

It should surprise no one that women, on the rare occasions when they are ordered to pay support, are statistically the worst deadbeat parents.

All birth control comes with health risks, and I don't think the government should be up in people's health choices.
______________________________________

Exactly. Forced birth control - and forced sterilization - has a very long and nasty history in the US. So of course politicians are leery of anything that smells of that.

https://www.google.com/search?q=forced+sterilization+nih+&oq=forced+sterilization+nih+&gs_l=psy-ab.3...40324.42563.0.42841.27.12.0.0.0.0.185.1101.7j4.11.0.dummy_maps_web_fallback...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..22.0.0....0.LNpOKLe3rQk

(the first few articles come from the National Institutes of Health)
_______________________________________

If a woman has the sole right to determine whether or not the child is carried to term, why should a man be compelled in any way to support a child he did not consent to father? Shouldn't he have the ability to sever any tie?
_______________________________________

No politician with half a brain is going to support - or allow - any bill that would likely make the abortion rate skyrocket. Even if that were only temporary. (If Roe gets overturned, "paper abortions" will become all the more taboo as a subject of debate. Especially since the 20 states that are ready and waiting to outlaw abortion are not likely to do the logical thing and make it easier for couples to get safe, effective birth control.)

And let's not forget that any father who didn't want a kid could simply say "she lied about being on birth control" or "she did THAT trick." Even if she didn't. (BTW, the real-life failure rate of the Pill is 6%, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. So don't complain about having to use condoms too.)

So...if unmarried men were allowed to abandon unwanted children, why wouldn't married men eventually be allowed to do that? (Thankfully, even MRAs don't suggest encouraging the latter, but from a child's perspective, what's the difference? None.)

More on forced sterilization in the US:

https://www.google.com/search?q=forced+sterilization+in+the+us&oq=forced+sterilization+in&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l10.28751.85195.0.86290.3.3.0.0.0.0.90.241.3.3.0.dummy_maps_web_fallback...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.238...0i67k1.0.EO2zVkKRvh8

> No government assistance beyond
> the first child.

Decency is not about freebie forgiveness of sins. Such a policy translates as—

'We're just kidding; your child doesn't deserve a loving father or a responsible household, and your surrounding culture will work as hard as it can to set aside the wealth of hardworking, disciplined families to fulfill your idiot schoolgirl twitches of feeling. So get out there ASAP and get fucked from behind by some illiterate burger flipper... First one's on us!'

> All birth control comes with health
> risks, and I don't think the
> government should be up in people's
> health choices.

This reasoning is preposterous; the creation of children is not a "health choice." If you insist that it is, the taxpayer should insist that the childbearer carry the full responsibility of the "choice," disallowing the revenue collector from "being up in" the wallets of others.

Nic, I often feel that —whatever European nation you're living in— the continuing comfort of the American military umbrella which shelters you at essentially no cost has allowed your socialist impulses to run amok.

Things cost stuff.

That it happens not to be your stuff, and that this transaction happens out of sight, doesn't mean the things that brighten your lives (like free care of unloved children) are provided by people with nothing better to do.

The entire welfare apparatus is based on preventing children from starving, but before welfare not many children starved. Welfare ironically makes children worse off by making marriages less stable and less likely, by encouraging women to be careless and even to get pregnant for the $. But once you have the welfare system, you are trapped because any move to reduce it will seem to be aimed at causing children to starve.
People used to mostly wait to be married before having kids, so the idea that people (even minorities) are incapable of this is simply false.

But socialism, Ceecer! We should all totally pitch it to buy a new whatever for whomever!

Nicole, why does it have to be voluntary?

The only reason not to agree to it is the intent to breed more kids that the benefit recipient can't feed. On what basis do you assert a right to create financial obligations for others, and why don't you put your money where your mouth is and send me your credit card?

Ah, but you say....

"All birth control comes with health risks, and I don't think the government should be up in people's health choices."

You forgot about chastity belts (which can be made for both sexes.)

"I like the idea of the free paternity tests, but they should be voluntary"

That's given, since the party disputing paternity is the one requesting the test. You need to think these things through.

"It is not a choice at all for people who do not take some type of birth control action."

Jay, perhaps your parents didn't explain this to you, but having sex is a prerequisite, so unless one is raped, yes, it is an avoidable choice, birth control or not, the same way losing money in a casino is always an avoidable choice.

"The custodial parent should be required to document, with bills and receipts, that all support money received is spent on the child's needs."

Better yet, submit a monthly expense report, with receipts. Non-custodial parent can dispute any item on it (e.g. if your kid's getting bad grades because he's on the XBox all day, you shouldn't be forced to buy him video games) and it goes to arbitration. Once any disputes are handled, non custodial parent pays half of the total.

"They need more incentives to motivate them ... Offering them $25 cash to receive Depo-Provera or $250 cash to receive Nexplanon would motivate a lot of them to stay focused enough to go through the process."

Better yet, some private foundations have sponsored programs offering payment of a few thousand dollars for undergoing surgical sterilization. It's a marvelous way to get people with short time preferences to not breed. It's fully voluntary and non-discriminatory, the only factor is what value the subject places on their own fertility and how far into the future they plan.

"If Roe gets overturned, "paper abortions" will become all the more taboo as a subject of debate."

If Roe gets overturned the premise of the idea is negated - if women no longer have the ability to opt out, so there is no reason for men to have it.

> If Roe gets overturned

Just for grins, we should post the amount we'd wager that it will or won't be.

I can sell a not-new car— I got $10K that says it can't happen.

cc said: People used to mostly wait to be married before having kids, so the idea that people (even minorities) are incapable of this is simply false.>>

The sad fact is that, right now, marriage is an unlikely dream for many minority/lower SES-status women. IMO, too many lower SES-catagory men aren't very interested in, or capable of, being in a solid marriage (and lower SES women aren't necessarily very mature either). Our culture has deteriorated badly in this aspect; my mother was from a poor, working class background but had plenty of opportunity to marry men who would be faithful and work themselves into the grave if necessary to support a family. We could really use a cultural change that would encourage marriage and promote the kinds of personal development that makes for two people who will be mature enough to make good marriage partners. As it stands, too many women have no likely prospect of finding a decent man to marry--and yet like most women, they want children. Result: more single parenthood, more father-absent homes, more people not rising out of poverty, and the vicious cycle continues.

Let me offer a more immodest proposal. If a single parent can't support her child, don't give her any support at all, either from the father (who likely didn't expect that she'd want to get or stay pregnant) or the taxpayers. Instead, take the kid away and put him in foster care. Not only is this cheaper, it removes the incentive for "welfare hoes" to breed as a means of getting a free living. Result: millions fewer kids with no future!

It makes no sense to bother building a wall so long as we keep subsidizing the needless creation of millions of barbarian thugs inside our own borders.