Converting 'pro choice' people to the 'pro choices' position

[DanielJohn2300]

This might sound strange, but I want to thank you for the negative feedback; because that’s how new ideas get tested. In the end, I don’t care whether or not it passes the test, only that I shared it, just in case it came from God.

The vasectomy would be voluntary, like any other plea bargain. Think of a man’s twofold act, of causing an unwanted pregnancy and not paying child support, in the same light as not paying taxes. Not paying taxes lands a man in prison because it burdens taxpayers. Similarly, the deadbeat dad burdens taxpayers because they will have to support his child in his place. So, if a tax evader goes to prison for burdening taxpayers, then so should a deadbeat dad for the same reason. But there is one big difference. There is a way for the deadbeat dad to give taxpayers near 100% assurance that he will not cause any more unwanted pregnancies. It’s the vasectomy, and it should therefore be offered to him as a plea bargain, which he could accept instead of serving prison time. Remember, in light of 1Tim 1:9, that the ‘pro choices’ law is written NOT for law-abiding men but for lawless men.

I think it would cut down on abortion, because a lot of single pregnant women are probably not aware of the help that is out there, plus it would enable the welfare system to be sustainable. Also, the plea bargain would cut down on men causing unwanted pregnancies, which in turn would cut down on abortion. Here is an example of how the plea bargain would prevent deaths. Jennifer Nalley of Driggs, Idaho was 12 weeks pregnant when she was killed by the father of her child for not getting an abortion. The killer had caused two previous unwanted pregnancies with two other women, both of which ended in abortion. So, he caused 4 deaths in all. But if the ‘pro choices’ law would have been in place, then he would have gotten a vasectomy after he caused the first unwanted pregnancy, and that would have prevented at least 3 of those 4 deaths.

My purpose in telling my bishop about it is to determine whether it is better to be ‘pro choices’ than to be ‘pro choice’. It saddens me that we can’t even convert more than half of the church to the ‘pro life’ position. But I believe that we could convert ‘pro choice’ people to the ‘pro choices’ position, and later ‘pro choices’ people to the ‘pro lives’ position. That gives me hope that we could live to see the day that abortion comes to an end, as well as the day our country becomes united again, due to its most divisive issue finally getting resolved.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

It could reduce abortion some. But I feel like in the Jennifer Nalley story, the women may have chosen abortion anyway, and if they choose that then there is no court/child support scenario and thus no vasectomy. If a woman chooses to keep the baby, that is when your vasectomy idea comes into play. So the women would need to choose life to start with. It seems like making choosing life easier and more appealing to start with would be the better option. Perhaps we could combine the ideas I brought up in my other post with harsher penalties of some sort for non-payment of child support. Along with incentivizing marriage.

 

[Beryllos]

Your plan appears highly transactional. It’s all down to rewards and penalties. Where is the love?

It just so happens that, outside of God sending back His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, there is not one but two ways that God can end abortion.

No. There must be other ways. I will enthusiastically support any plan that works on the basis of love and by the action of good people bringing out the best in others, following the example of Jesus.

 

[JimG]

we need to incentivize (financially and emotionally) the 2 parent, married family somehow.

Yes, exactly. But our society has instead been intent on incentivizing non-marriage, gay marriage, singlehood, sexual license, and nearly anything that is a deviation from traditional marriage and family. It needs to be reversed.

 

[DanielJohn2300]

the women may have chosen abortion anyway, and if they choose that then there is no court/child support scenario and thus no vasectomy

Actually Gingersnaps, there is still a vasectomy, because the ‘pro-choices’ law makes his choice INDEPENDENT of hers. So, regardless of what she chooses to do, he still has to choose between either paying child support into the welfare system or getting a vasectomy. If she gets an abortion, then he is more likely to get the vasectomy, instead of paying child support for the welfare of other children. But he still has to make that choice nonetheless. His choice is between the two ways that he can take responsibility for having caused an unwanted pregnancy.

Today, whether or not the man takes responsibility is DEPENDENT on whether the woman gets an abortion. In other words, he gets out of having to pay child support if she gets an abortion. This is why the leading cause of death among unwed pregnant women is to be killed by her child’s father for not getting an abortion (in his criminal mind, she was trying to force him into having to pay child support). Since the ‘pro choices’ law prevents these double homicides from happening, pro-life and pro-choice people should both be in favor of converting our current ‘pro-choice’ law into the ‘pro-choices’ law, once they learn about it and see how it works.

 

[DanielJohn2300]

Where is the love?

Thanks for the question Beryllos. The love in the Maternal Rights Act (MRA) is: 1. It ensures that welfare money can be available for every mother who needs it (due to the sustainability of the welfare system), and 2. It protects unwed pregnant women from the danger of either being threatened to get an abortion or being killed for not getting one. The love in the Fetal Rights Addendum (FRA) is that it preserves the right of the unborn child to live. MRA = pro choices law, and MRA + FRA = pro lives law. MRA is proposed by men and supported by women. FRA is proposed by women and supported by men. Men go first, because God confronts the man first, whenever the man and woman are in trouble with God (Gen 3:8-13).

 

[Gingersnaps4]

So you want any woman who gets an abortion to be put on some kind of government database list and be made to supply the names of the possible fathers? I suppose the aborted fetus would need DNA testing to figure out who would need to pay support or be fixed, to be sure there is no mistake? What if she decides to keep the baby, and also doesn’t need welfare? Would the man then get a pass or would he still be added to a government database and made to do something? This all just seems like a lot of trouble. The resources and manpower that would need to go into it may possibly negate any extra that would be added into the welfare program.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Also, it doesn’t add up to me to make a man pay child support into a system for a baby that doesn’t exist, especially if the woman chose the abortion without his (name removed by moderator)ut. You also don’t say what befalls a married man whose wife and he choose an abortion, or need welfare. Would he (they) need to pay into the welfare system if they also are needing to receive it? Is the husband forced into a vasectomy still?

 

[DanielJohn2300]

As soon as an unwed woman finds out that she is pregnant, she reports it as an unwanted pregnancy, along with the name of the father. On the baby’s due date, the man is due to either make his first payment into the welfare system or send in a doctor’s note indicating that he has gotten a vasectomy. You make a good point about the need to collect DNA evidence for cases where the man denies being the father or the woman doesn’t know who the father is. If she doesn’t need welfare, then there would still be a certain minimum amount for him to pay into the welfare system (and for her to receive). Good point about if she gets an abortion. Perhaps that’s another thing that could cause his child support payment to be the minimum amount (he still needs to be required to pay because it is important for their choices to be INDEPENDENT of each other).

A married woman does not report a pregnancy as an unwanted pregnancy unless it is an abusive marriage or they are unable to support the child. One count of fathering a child unlawfully goes on his record, a misdemeanor (no vasectomy needed); and this one count can be removed from his record if he gets help for his abuse problem (in the case where the marriage is abusive) or they gain the ability to support the child themselves (in the case where they needed to apply for welfare). The MRA encourages people to marry by the fact that EVERY pregnancy outside of marriage needs to be reported as an unwanted pregnancy, while only a few of the pregnancies inside of marriage need to be reported.

 

[MamaJewel]

The MRA encourages people to marry by the fact that EVERY pregnancy outside of marriage needs to be reported as an unwanted pregnancy, while only a few of the pregnancies inside of marriage need to be reported.

I know you mean well, but I see so many problems with your proposal because some of the mandates would be an absolute violation of privacy.

Also, I have known many married women who have faced unplanned and unwanted pregnancies and many single women who have experienced wanted, planned pregnancies. So the concepts fail in real time.

Life isn’t so black and white. There is a concept called “social capital”. Human beings are social creatures and we quite often behave based on how others perceive and treat us. Law and court systems can be very problematic as well when someone is making a statement of abuse. People value others based on what they can bring to the table.

Pregnancy and motherhood can be very oppressive for some women, depending how circumstances play out. And being a welfare recipient doesn’t improve social capital any day of the week. Welfare carries a stigma with it.

 

[OnAJourney]

The difference is that the welfare system would be collecting money from an additional source (men who have caused an unwanted pregnancy). Also, it would report men who are delinquent on their child support payments. The child support payments would be obligatory if he has not gotten a vasectomy, and voluntary if he has.

And where’s the responsibility on the part of the women in that situation? The women didn’t want pregnancy, that’s fair. But why are you suggesting men be forcibly sterilized if they don’t pay child support? Is it right to sterilize someone under the force of law because they got someone pregnant? I don’t think it is.

I think both parties bear some responsibility in bringing about unwanted pregnancies. I don’t think you can or should pin everything on the man or woman. Both people in that instance did something wrong

 

[Elf01]

And where’s the responsibility on the part of the women in that situation? The women didn’t want pregnancy, that’s fair. But why are you suggesting men be forcibly sterilized if they don’t pay child support? Is it right to sterilize someone under the force of law because they got someone pregnant? I don’t think it is.

I think both parties bear some responsibility in bringing about unwanted pregnancies. I don’t think you can or should pin everything on the man or woman. Both people in that instance did something wrong

If I wasn’t Catholic I would be in favor of mandating sterilization for women who had abortions.

 

[Beryllos]

Okay, that is a start, but you’re not done. We need to work on the love of a mother for her child, and the love that binds father and mother to each other and their family. While we are at it, we should work on the love between individuals that builds trust and mutual support at the societal level.

 

[TheLittleLady]

This looks more and more like some Science Fiction novel.

 

[DanielJohn2300]

some of the mandates would be an absolute violation of privacy

Good point. But have you noticed that privacy often has to be sacrificed for security? (ie. boarding planes, going to football games, etc) People are willing to sacrifice a little privacy as long as they understand that it is necessary for security. Under the MRA, a man, who has caused an unwanted pregnancy, but is otherwise a decent guy, would need to sacrifice a little privacy, so that the state can prevent the murder of pregnant women by evil men. Since the man makes the sacrifice, men would propose the MRA. Women would only support it, once it is proposed.

“Unwanted pregnancy” is just a legal term to describe pregnancies which have the greatest risk for abortion or double murder. The MRA encourages unmarried couples, who have a wanted pregnancy, to get married, so that the welfare system will not have to sit between them. It also encourages married couples to not be afraid to ask for child support. If the word “welfare” has a stigma to it, then maybe we should just call it child support?

 

[DanielJohn2300]

why are you suggesting men be forcibly sterilized if they don’t pay child support?

Please see my response in post #20. The sterilization is voluntary just like any other plea bargain. The Maternal Rights Act is about the man doing his part to end abortion so that the woman will later want to do her part (her part is the Fetal Rights Addendum). When the couple is in trouble with God, the man goes first, because God confronts the man first (see Gen 3:8-19).

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

No just no. Forced Sterilization practices… no.

 

[DanielJohn2300]

Good evening Berryllos. Here is another thought that occurred to me today with regards to love versus a lack thereof. If the father and mother are married, then their love for each other should be as two who have become one flesh, in perfect agreement on that one choice, which I mentioned in post #1. They choose, of course, for her to bear the child and for him to support the child (interestingly, she and their child are also one flesh up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut, thus explaining the special bond between the mother and child).

It is only when the father and mother are not married that things become complicated, due to a LACK of love. Since they are not one flesh, the one choice needs to be separated into two choices, as I did in posts #1 and #2. Otherwise, she would be in danger if she wants to bear their child and he does not want to support their child; because in his selfish mind, he would think that she is forcing him into having to pay child support. But go back to the previous paragraph to finish this thought on a positive note.

 

[Bradskii]

OnAJourney:

And where’s the responsibility on the part of the women in that situation? The women didn’t want pregnancy, that’s fair. But why are you suggesting men be forcibly sterilized if they don’t pay child support? Is it right to sterilize someone under the force of law because they got someone pregnant? I don’t think it is.

I think both parties bear some responsibility in bringing about unwanted pregnancies. I don’t think you can or should pin everything on the man or woman. Both people in that instance did something wrong

If I wasn’t Catholic I would be in favor of mandating sterilization for women who had abortions.

Whaaaaaaaat?

 

[OnAJourney]

It’s not really voluntary sterilization if you don’t want to pay child support is it? Just no. If your solution revolves around sterilizing others, you’ve gone too far