Do you think this idea can slow down poverty in the United States?
New Law: Every baby born is required to get a DNA test at birth!
If a man and a woman decide to marry and have children, the hospital does an automatic DNA test at birth. If the child does not belong to the husband, the husband is free to say "goodbye" and has no financial or parental obligation to the child.
If a man and a woman decide to marry and have children, the hospital should do an automatic DNA test at birth. If the child does belong to the husband, the husband is obligated for the rest of the child’s childhood (and all through college) to support and parent the child that is his.
If a man and a woman decide to marry and have children, the hospital should do an automatic DNA test at birth. If the child does belong to the husband, and as stated before, the husband would be obligated for the rest of the child’s young life to support and parent the child. If the woman, for some reason, runs off and he decides not to put the child up for adoption (he does have this option at this point), he is free to raise the child himself.
If a man and a woman are not married and the child had the DNA test done at birth, if the boyfriend or "accused" is not the father, he is also free to move on and not have any financial or parental responsibility.
If he is in love with this woman and wants to marry her, he is free to adopt the child as his own after they marry.
If a man and a woman are not married and the child had the DNA test done at birth, if the boyfriend or "accused" is the father, he is also free to move on and not have any financial or parental responsibility. He only has to sign a document stating that he has aborted his financial and parental responsibility and is free to go.
Again, if he is in love with the woman, and he wants to be a father to his genetically-born child, he is free to sign documents stating that he will have the same responsibility toward the child as if they were married before the child was born. However, since they were not married before the child was born, if they marry later and divorce, the woman and child are not qualified for government assistance. If she becomes widowed at any time during the child’s life, she is qualified for assistance at this point.
Women have that right to abort, I think men should have the same right to abort (but their abortion is in writing only).
If the mother is unmarried and does not have anyone to support her child, she is not allowed to go on any public benefits. If the mother was married and the husband left her because it was not his child, she cannot get any public benefits.
This does not mean that she and the child starve to death. They can go to the local or national "right-to-life" organization and have the child supported by this group who supports women having children that they cannot afford. All "right-to-life" donations are not tax deducible and are in no way funded by the public funds. All funds are voluntary and given out of the goodness of the "right-to-life" people’s pure hearts, none expecting any reward in any way. They are obligated to support the child through college also, and they must provide a middle-class standard or higher home, clothing, food, utilities, a great education (private preferred), and health care (again, no government health care because most right-to-lifers are against any type of public health care anyway).
If there were no government funds to leech from and no men who are not forced to be fathers when they never signed up for the task in the first place, woman may actually look into this whole "birth control" thing that has been around for over 60 years now.
Women will realize that the "right-to-lifers" are only right-to-life in talk, not in spirit, so there won’t be any real money for these children who born to irresponsible mothers. Most will put these children up for adoption, and the children will finally have good, bright opportunities.
It sure will give men some pause to think about what type of women they will marry since knowing that once they marry, any children that is of their DNA is their responsibility forever. So marriage will be seen as something serious and not to be taken lightly when it comes to the support of their own children.
Every situation is different and has different circumstances, but it seems to be a major problem with women who have children out of wedlock and go on public assistance. They end up with even worse men in their lives who either beat them, beat their children, or rape their children. Again, not every child born out of wedlock has mothers who can’t care for them properly, but it happens a lot.
If this idea were enacted as a law, we might actually reduce poverty, crime, and waste in the United States. My guess is that nobody really wants to solve these problems and wants to keep everythi
My words got cut off…here is the rest:
everything "status quo" and complain about the "welfare costs", "abortions", and "crime" in our cities.
Scary Monkey: Please explain where the basic bill of rights are violated? I’m open to making changes to not have this be an issue.
