“A man’s income can involuntarily be confiscated to care for children that he does not want, affecting the course of his life.”
“The common response to the man is that you should have been more careful in your choice of partner, or you should have kept your trousers zipped up. Legally he is told that he has no option other than the one that the woman “chooses” to give him.”
That is the thing, two wrongs don’t make a right to me. I don’t believe in abortion and think it isn’t a choice, it is a murder. So, IMO the woman and man do have a choice to not have kids and that starts with one easy thing, don’t have sex with someone you don’t want to have kids with.
Giving a man a choice to not pay child support on a child he had with some one night stand is making another wrong. I cannot agree that just because a woman gets to choose a man should be allowed to choose. I think this is not a conservative principle. I think the best way to handle it is to keep fighting abortion head on and try to get it overturned federally and let the states decide if they want abortion in their state or not.
The object is to formulate Policy and law that is MOST LIKELY to make the best out of a bad situation. I think that the best objective would be away from subsidizing single motherhood and toward heterosexual 2 parent adoption. Yes it is infinintely better than the evil that is abortion. Remember, what has significantly changed in the reproductive relationship between men and women is the behavior of WOMEN due to radical feminism and the sexual revolution. Men have basically remained the indiscriminate pigs that nature inclines them to be, absent the moderating forces of civillization and traditional feminine rectitude that largely prompted the development of it by chanelling the creative energy and power of men in ways that convince women to share gene pools with them. I think most would agree that most women have been evolutionarily programmed to be more sexually reticent and discriminating due to the disproportionate burdens that reproduction incurs upon them. Societal mechanisms (which also served to moderate the rampant sexual tendencies of men that remain essentially unchanged) that acknowledged this reality have been distorted by Roe, and the cultural Marxism of the counter cultural revolution of the ‘60s that are now nearly mainstream. (This is no accident. Read about the influence of the cultural Marxists Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse) This suit has the possibility of restoring some of that balance by reviving the civillizing sexual moderation of women. Lest you think me sexist, I have simply been able to cast off the veil of obsfucation cast over my vision by political correctness.
As every basic economic theory has shown, when you subsidize a thing you get more of it. The various levels of government have been subsidizing single motherhood for four decades now with a commensurate rise in the rate of bastard children with no fathers in their lives. Public policy should be toward encouraging adoption for such children rather than all of the aid programs and forced child support payments for single women that have helped to accelerate the trend.
The problem is that PC, radical feminism, the sexual revolution, the welfare state, moral relativism, and mindless multiculturalism has weakened the strictures against illegitimacy that used to keep far more young women from this sort of thing than happens now. the stigma WAS far worse and fair or not, it served it’s purposes well. When I was growing up, if a young woman got pregnant she frequently went down south to have the child where it would be placed for adoption or raised by relatives. Today the girls in my neighborhood have baby showers, and think that nothing that is significantly wrong with that, as it is now the norm. It wasn’t in 1965.
As for men not being called for it, in this state all the woman has do do if she is getting public aid is to make an allegation and the guy has to show up for the DNA test or recieve a default judgement of child support that is irrevocable. Remember, he is held LEGALLY to the strictest standard of accountability. The fact that people are able to evade the legal consequences is no reflection on the severity of the law that holds him accountable. He does not have the wide range of LEGAL options that women do.