-->
@TheUnderdog
Less children should be born to poor parents, so the solution should be to give vasectomies to guys if they have a kid without being able to pay for that kid.
What about parents who are poor, but by choice want to have a child? Like two immigrants from let's say eastern Europe who've moved here. They have a child, get ready to live the American dream, and wham, the guy loses his job (we'll leave aside the fact that you think a minimum wage job is somehow close to enough money to raise a care for a child for now). Uh oh! Now he has to go on welfare. Should he get sterilized NOW, or does he get a grace period to find a new job? Or is it "Along with your welfare application, sorry you've hit tough times, by the way, here is your mandatory sterilization paperwork, you'll need a surgical procedure in order to collect your first welfare pay out"? Is that kind of how you envision it? Is the vasectomy government sponsored? I presume yes, since the person's too poor to afford daycare on their own. Does that mean the reversal of same, which is considerably more difficult and not 100% successful, is ALSO government sponsored?
so the solution should be to give vasectomies to guys if they have a kid without being able to pay for that kid.
Is there NO OTHER solution you'd consider? Obviously you're against bodily autonomy in principle. Let's say a poor WOMAN gets pregnant, by a man she's living with, who is supporting her. He wants to have a kid, he has a good job, he can certainly afford it...buuuuuuuut he also enjoys slapping her around when she gets out of line, a fact she discovers only AFTER she's pregnant. She decides she wants nothing to do with this guy, so she goes off the grid, like in the movie Enough, and creates a new life for herself. Two questions: does the man have to be sterilized? He is not paying child support. Does the WOMAN have to be sterilized? She has a kid she can't afford. What's the penalty for her? The point is ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS are solved by giving women the right to choose what happens medically to their own bodies. The solution is NOT to take away the rights of a man in response to the loss of the rights of the woman. This is not only a further tax burden on society, it's counter to what you want to have happen. With bodily autonomy, the FIRST pregnancy never becomes a tax burden. In your system, IT ONLY BECOMES MORE OF A TAX BURDEN. That also ignores the widespread ramifications on society at large, long term.
If you get someone pregnant at 16 and you and your spouse agree to keep the baby, then your life’s mission should be focused on giving your child a better life. Deadbeats should be less selfish and start taking personal responsibility for their kid.
So I'm clear: if you get someone pregnant at 16 and can't pay child support (no minor can effectively pay child support), the government can mandate a MINOR gets a vasectomy, but the CHILD / MOTHER and her PARENTS cannot decide to have an elective abortion. Is that correct? Your idea is to permanently affect three lives, forever, rather than allow an abortion. That's your solution?
