Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Permanent birth control

I would be interested in any stats that you may have of how many boys or girls can not really afford a rubber.
Yours,
Issodhos

No, there is a precise definition for coersion, and we are not speaking of other cultures.
Yours,
Issodhos

It is obvious I wasn't addressing coercion but your claims regarding who is responsible etc, which was the content of my earlier post to which you responded.

Having trouble keeping up?

Iss, with real respect for what you've written - condoms aren't expensive, but they're also not terrifically trustworthy, and their failure due to user error is really high as well. I haven't checked the stats since I was dumb enough to rely on a male partner for birth control, so it's been more than a little while.

Birth control that has to be carried around "just in case" has a high risk of failure due to misuse, degradation due to storagee problems, or just plain not around when needed. They work, yes, sometimes, maybe even most of the time - but a 90% success rate was never good enough for me. I was looking for 98-99

How many men can't afford a rubber? I would hazard a guess that all those men who aren't paying their full child support probably can't afford condoms; God knows their last dime is going towards their existing children.

The main issue here is not whether the state should help raise children. The problem here is whether the state should get its act together to identify non-supporting parents and see to it that they support their OWN children, or whether it should close its eyes to the problem and attack the one person who (the vast
majority of the time) actually stuck around to take care of them.

Please note that I'm trying to be gender-neutral; however, statistics presented on a related thread show that the majority of single parents are women, which would indicate to me that if there's irresponsibility in child care, it's probably the one who ain't there.

Get the state to enforce support of children by their parents. Do paternity testing needed. If it's genetically your kid, you're due to pay. I don't care how big a problem the other parent is; that's your kid.

Figure out that problem, and this idiotic idea of trade-your-medical-rights-for-childcare can go away.

I've got it!

Drugstores can start selling a little kit, to women. Used within 24 hours after intercourse, it will make a DNA record from any sperm present.

It would be simple and unobtrusive for any woman to take a genetic sample of any man who might impregnate her. If she becomes pregnant, she has what's necessary to prove paternity.

It could be sold right alongside the contraceptives. And of course, if a condom was used properly, there would BE no sperm present, hence no record.

Brilliant!

You know, I really, really like this idea. I wish I could send it somewhere! Hmmm... wonder if there are any "underground" women's health initiatives left. I may really have to follow up on this.

Because women are going to love this idea. Men, maybe, not so much, I don't know.

Julia
I am supposing this would not be so very difficult to even require a "kit". After all, Police can take DNA off of all sorts of things left behind... so a simple q-tip swab put into a plastic bag and marked as to date and origin would likely serve your purpose.

Yes, you're right, and I thought of that. I was thinking of something more high-tech, however, that would simply not record anything if no sperm were present.

But it would at least make sure that both contributors to conception could be identified later!

Tracking a non-supporting parent would still be a big problem, but since there's so much taxpayer money involved, I'd bet it would be cost-effective to improve the system; that change is long overdue anyway.

But the biggest reason I've heard for penalizing mothers rather than fathers is that mothers are more identifiable (it's akin to a parent saying "I'll slap you because I can't reach your brother," but that logic seems to work for a lot of people.)

My proposal isn't for the benefit of the people invovled, you know. It's for the benefit of those who say "oh, the fathers, we can't do anything about them." Sure we can - and we start by making sure we know who they are.

Late edit: Now if we're talking about the next step - of course you COULD make that same, temporary sterilization offer, and that would solve, for awhile, the threat of more unwanted children. But it wouldn't do anything to convince the non-custodial parent to pay. So that's what we need to figure out next. Jailtime, perhaps?)

I think that makes more sense than using jail to treat substance abusers.

You know, I recall when getting drunk was thought to be an amusing lark. Police might take in an offender to sleep it off, then release him with a cordial pat on the back next morning.

Now that drinking and driving laws have toughened up, the problem is much reduced. I imagine the same would be true if we ever got really serious about addressing the problems we are considering on this thread.

BINGO - Give that man a prize!

Ardy, much as I hate using this phrase -- you are, indeed, "the man!"

And it only took us two threads and a number of pages to get to the answer -- look at where the problem lies, and solve it there.

Bless you. Truly.