I recognize that kids in poverty is not a desirable outcome.
That said, I'd also point out that 18 years of child support (which many states assign as an uncapped percentage of the man's income - not based on what it actually costs to feed, clothe, house, and support a child) is exceptionally brutal on the finances and causes permanent financial loss that many men never financially recover from.
That is not a desirable outcome either - especially for high-income men who may end up risking child support payments in excess of the total gross income of the average person.
Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?
So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?
The double standard is because of the difference in practical consequences. I’m inclined to agree with you on principle, but it would be extremely harmful in practice. I think the move is to change society so that it would be less harmful, eg provide tons of government support to parents.
If the consequences for following through with a poorly-planned pregnancy are so tragically high for the children, why do we not simply restrict and have licensing requirements for the privilege to have children?
We use the power of the state to protect kids from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, mature content, etc. Why not use the power of the state to protect kids from poverty?
We don't let people operate automobiles on public roads, forklifts, practice medicine, sell insurance, manage investments, perform plumbing work, become a teacher, or even become a surveyor, an interior designer, or a hairdresser in many states without an evaluation of their competency and license from the state, why should the ability to become a parent be treated with less scrutiny than the ability to become a hairdresser or an interior designer?
If harm reduction is the primary operating principle here, isn't the unrestricted ability to have kids in direct opposition to that goal? There are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to parent (physically abusing kids, starving them, emotionally neglecting them, etc) just as there are objectively wrong and dangerous/harmful ways to operate a car (not following speed limits, not following traffic control devices, reckless driving), no?
Why is it perfectly fine for the state to restrict someone from selling insurance on the grounds of harm reduction, while there are no state restrictions whatsoever on parenthood?
Two points. The first is that harm reduction is what I want, but not necessarily what the state wants or what others want. Many want the state to promote stability, even if the world made stable involves a lot of harm. Objectively, a primary motive of the state is to maintain itself, since if it didn’t maintain itself it wouldn’t exist. Harm reduction is something the state has to be pushed and dragged into doing and there isn’t enough will to do so imo.
The second point is that what you’re asking for may cause more harm than it prevents by putting us one step away from a eugenics policy. Deliberate suppression of minority populations could (and would) be done by subtly adjusting the criteria people would need to meet to be approved for having children without the majority of the population taking notice. I don’t necessarily disagree with the idea if it had no misuse, but I’m certain it would be misused.
I want to clarify that I'm bouncing around policy ideas here, not making impassioned calls for specific policy positions.
Your concerns about state-sanctioned racialization / eugenics are certainly valid and historically supported.
I'd answer your call to give parents money with a question though - what money? The US, at the federal level, already spends trillions more than it collects each year, and now over a trillion dollars a year on interest payments, too. I don't believe we can just keep borrowing to infinity, consequence-free forever.
It also raises a question of needs prioritization. Do parents need that help more than homeless people do? What about bright but underserved kids from urban communities who might have the cognitive horsepower to become doctors but lack the financial means? What about foreigners living in far worse conditions than what we consider "poverty" here, like child slaves forced to mine toxic rare earth minerals in Africa?
I would argue that money to reduce child poverty and deprivation is one of the best, highest priority uses of money because it preempts many of the other issues that develop later as a consequence of material deprivation, lack of opportunity etc. In terms of affordability, I believe the covid child tax credit cost about 100 billion and achieved marked results. 100 billion isn’t a small deal, but if we raised taxes by 1-2% on households making around 200k+ it would cover it, which seems entirely worth it.
That said, I'd also point out that 18 years of child support (which many states assign as an uncapped percentage of the man's income - not based on what it actually costs to feed, clothe, house, and support a child) is exceptionally brutal on the finances and causes permanent financial loss that many men never financially recover from.
That is not a desirable outcome either - especially for high-income men who may end up risking child support payments in excess of the total gross income of the average person.
Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?
So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?