A Comprehensive Solution on Abortion vs the Current One-sided Scheme
By: Bill Myers
Tags: Politics, Abortion, Finance, Culture, Responsibility

Pro and Anti Abortion Fanatics. Photo by Richard Lee on Unsplash

Politics

A Comprehensive Solution on Abortion vs the Current One-sided Scheme

Women risk all for sex, men risk nothing. Equalize the risks, then both sides, fleeing the hysteria & faulty logic, will find a solution.

Synopsis

Someone said, “Antiabortionists are so worried about the fetus, but don’t care about the baby after it is born.” The Supreme Court made one big mistake with Roe-v-Wade when addressing the first half of that statement. They inserted a fuzzy middle between two solid decisions — room for constant bickering. I’ll address that. Also, the Court, Congress, religions, nobody, seriously mentions the other half of the abortion problem. This article identifies both parts and proposes a workable solution.

A unique approach

My proposal could change the entire debate, culture and infrastructure of the United States.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results!

Corollary: attacking half of a problem and expecting a full solution.

I solve problems; Without letting my emotions get in the way.

When two sides lock horns for too long, it is time to go in a different direction.

It takes two to create the abortion issue,

so this solution addresses both sides:

1. Abortion — allow an arbitrary abortion until the fetus becomes self-aware, or 3 months, whichever comes first. The Pro-Life fanatics have the right idea, but the wrong organ with the heart.

— allow an arbitrary abortion until the fetus becomes self-aware, or 3 months, whichever comes first. The Pro-Life fanatics have the right idea, but the wrong organ with the heart. 2. Paternity — require the sperm provider to pay child support until the child is 21 years old. Record the DNA profile of every baby immediately upon birth, so that there are no questions.

Currently, the woman takes all of the risks to have sex, and the man, in reality, takes none. A woman displays a lot of courage just to go out on the first date with a man. This proposal forces the man to assume some risk if they wind up in bed.

The abortion portion could be implemented immediately. The paternity side will take many years to fall into place. However, we can do several things to speed it up.

The ramifications of this proposal impact many areas of society - crime, inheritance, economics, insurance, taxes, and government, to name a few. The last section of this article, ramifications, explores the details more thoroughly.

I have never seen this solution anywhere in print. It makes sense once you see where both the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life factions have gone awry.

======= How we got to this point =======

Abortion Bills and Rulings

I have been stuck in a trench ever since I read the Roe-v-Wade decision. I had trouble following the Supreme Court’s logic of why it should get involved in the first place. It bothered me for more than 25 years.

I would have approached the question from a different direction, but I see now, after reading the new Georgia abortion bill, that my approach was also flawed.

The Roe-v-Wade decision was correct, based on the court’s logic, although it included an unneeded complication that made it ripe for abuse. That was the middle trimester and abuse has happened.

In my opinion, the court should have used a different basis.

========== Pro-Life movement =========

My dad used to say “Let’s you and him fight.”

The key is “Let’s” means “Let us…”

“Us” is a spectator for my dad’s fight, and “Us” is not involved in the pregnancy or an abortion, but they want to write the rules.

I could write another 100 pages, but to boil things down:

Most Pro-Life support is based on religion, mainly Christianity. Anybody who cannot argue against abortion without bringing up religion is no different than one of those ayatollahs in the Middle East pushing Sharia law. Christianity teaches precisely what a “Good Christian Woman” should be, based on Sarah Olson’s Medium article “Why I Left the Pro-Life Movement.” Christianity teaches boys the same thing, but only in church. In reality, the fathers, uncles and mates teach exactly the opposite. Boys should “Sow their wild oats” before marriage. With who? How many men who voted for the new heartbeat abortion bills were virgins when they married? Or, if divorced, refrained from all sex until they were married again? If they weren’t, based on #3, they are hypocrites. Some resort to rape, and “Boys will be boys” as in the article Frat Party Rape by WysWoman (Jean Kennerson). It was well planned and executed, just like it was a normal activity. It shows a level of cruelty no different than a slave driver with a whip. They were probably keeping score. Saturday’s newspaper had a letter describing the same thing, same setting. It seems common. The second part of my proposal may deter that.



If the woman got pregnant, the DNA on file for both would point to the father. From what men claimed when I was in school, some men might graduate from college, having to pay both student loans and child support to half a dozen women. The parents could pay support while he is in college, then up to half of his salary would be garnisheed for 20 years after graduation. A majority of Pro-Life people that I have talked to support the death penalty. They are hypocrites, too. They are not really Pro-Life, just pro-power.

A person can be in the hospital and be pronounced brain dead. The relatives can then pull the plug.

The Pro-Life crowd, to be consistent, would be hypocrites if they let that happen. They should also support the elimination of DNR directives, no matter how much the person may suffer through amputations and forced feeding if revived.

Most do not put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps the fetus should be removed and implanted in a Pro-Life surrogate mother or test tube, then assigned to a Pro-life family to pay for and raise, instead of doing a normal abortion.

========== Pro-Choice ==========

There has been a lot of hype about reproductive rights and choice. I searched the internet and could not find anything to substantiate things that I have heard. It may be fake news, but I will list them anyway and comment.

I could write another 100 pages here, too, but to boil things down:

Name of source withheld by request.

Greed. I have seen rhetoric on TV and the internet that a woman should be able to get an abortion up to the time of birth.



At what point do the rights of a viable baby override the rights of the mother, without a medical emergency? Ownership. A woman, or a man, owns their body and should be able to do whatever they want.



A person may own something and still not have complete control, as in many areas of life. The state sets limits when there are conflicting interests.



In this case, the limit is a cutoff time to make the decision. In my opinion, the states are getting greedy the other way, thus abusing their power. Some men “are woefully, embarrassingly stupid,” not for what they said, but for saying something that displays so much ignorance about biology and medicine, based on the article “Pro-Choice Men: Here’s What You Need to Know” by Jessica Valenti.

The right for the woman to make an arbitrary decision to have an abortion needs to have a hard time limit, be it 3 months, 4 months or 20 weeks. A moving target does not work. Nobody else needs to be involved.

The South Bend Mayor summed things up perfectly at the Fox News town hall for abortions after the arbitrary decision period:

“We’re talking about women who have perhaps chosen the name, women who have purchased the crib, families that then get the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about the health or the life of the mother that forces them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice. That decision is not going to be made any better, medically or morally, because the government is dictating how that decision should be made.”

In fact, the government can make the situation much more dangerous. A doctor behaving like the government might be punished for mal-practice.

========== Ramifications ==========

General

Procedures change. The hospital now takes a footprint of the baby for the birth certificate when it is born. It should also take a DNA sample at the same time and log it into a national database. Logically, there is no difference between the footprint and the DNA sample.

The argument about self-incrimination does not apply since a newborn baby has not committed any crimes yet.

DNA Registration at Startup

This will be tricky. Some options would be to collect DNA from

all soldiers

Federal and State employees

all children entering first grade, middle and high school, over a 6 year period

anybody in jail

everybody receiving a drivers license or passport.

The courts would have to decide if DNA collected using these methods could be used in cases that occurred before the DNA collection date. Even if the cops knew that a person was a perpetrator via the startup DNA, they would have to collect another sample legally and use that sample in their case.

Here is my article explaining other ramifications:

Abortion

The State using its power to force a woman to have a baby makes her a slave of the state by forcing her into 20 years of labor. She is entirely subservient to a dominating influence, the State, in the matter of human reproduction. The constitution has outlawed slavery.

Science would have to come up with a universally agreed upon method to determine “self-aware” status if the state claims it is less than 3 months.

I see no problem with a waiting period of up to 24 hours or the next calendar day, whichever is less. It is a surgical procedure, so less than that would be on an emergency basis. There is usually no medical reason to show ultrasounds to the patient.

Paternity

The father would be tracible even when there was some question, as in the case of rape or multiple partners. Even if the woman did not become pregnant, the perpetrator in a rape case would be known unless he was here illegally.

A DNA test should be done on the fetus after an abortion unless the man had agreed that it was his. Either way, the cost of the abortion could be shared equally even if the man did not agree, was willing to pay for the delivery, and 20 years of child support.

In the Frat Party Rape article, it would be easy to identify, from the rape kit, a rapist that was hidden by darkness. Of course, the woman would have to file a police report.

If the woman carried the baby to full term, she could still identify the father to collect child support. Men might be a little more careful if it was certain that they could be identified as the father and be forced to pay for 20 years.

A one-night stand resulting in pregnancy could be easily traced.

Support Payments

An agency would need to be set up to handle DNA tracking and support payments. There is no reason that the man and woman should have contact with each other, or even know where each other lives.

Payments could be treated the same as a tax, with the same reporting requirements and penalties.

Visitation Rights

If a man is paying child support, should he have visitation rights and be kept informed of the child’s progress while growing up? Probably not unless both parties agree and register their agreement with the government agency handling support payments.

State and Federal Laws

Taxes: Georgia, surprisingly, included in their law a tax deduction for the unborn child. Federal laws should be upgraded to do the same after the abortion cutoff period. It wouldn’t have much impact on the national income if the pregnancy started in the middle half of the year.

Financial. Child support and wage garnishment laws would have to change. States might have to work together under general Federal guidelines. Child support would not be dischargeable under bankruptcy laws. Provisions would have to be included to prevent back support, incurred when the father had no income to garnish, from ballooning as student loans do now.

Foreigners: Foreign workers and students should be required to submit DNA samples upon entry. That would be questionable for temporary visitors, such as people attending meetings and conferences, tourists and athletes. The government would have to hash that out.

Insurance. Companies would have to be prevented, by law, from using DNA data to increase premiums or refuse coverage for pre-existing genetic conditions.

Privacy. Those laws would have to be modified, I suspect, to prevent the general release of DNA data. Laws have to be passed to prevent companies from tricking an individual from releasing it on their own.

Inheritance. The child would have no right to inherit anything from the man. Future payments to age 21 should have priority over other debts and put into an escrow account if the man dies early.

Other Issues. Society will change in unknown ways. Everything here will be the subject of furious debates.

Conclusion

Maybe the sadistic two sides prefer to fight instead of solving the problem. Meanwhile people suffer — mostly women and children.

The ability to readily identify paternity will most likely change the entire culture, from law enforcement to the treatment of women. I would like to see an article by someone else projecting how society would change.

I have no doubt that DNA registration will happen eventually. A huge group of opponents will be pulled kicking and screaming into the fold. It’s only a matter of time.