- The law/government getting involved in parental custody of a child is "intrusive"
- The law/government getting involved in child support and how much money is considered sufficient for a parent to pay is "intrusive"
- The law/government getting involved in marital divorce is "intrusive"
They've already crossed the line of being intrusive, so
And you somehow think these "intrusive" laws(i.e. laws that a lot of men view negatively) should be extended to when and what circumstances grown individuals should have children? How would these marriages even be monitored? Are married people then required to have protected sex? So are the women then required to get on birth control for all five years? Are the men required to use condoms all five years? Both have fail rates. Not every woman can take birth control, so what about those women? And how many men are interested in using condoms during their marriage?
What of people who want to have children, that are in great financial positions but can't find a partner to marry--there are woman like this that decide to have children currently as single mothers--they rarely get talked about. So are these women just aren't allowed to have kids because they couldn't find a man to marry them? Especially when a lot of men are forgoing marriage(especially BM), and there are a lot of single unmarried woman in their early thirties currently(because of schooling, career, and unfortunately not finding the right person) that only have a certain window of time before having children can be difficult--if they have to wait five years, they may not be able to. So will age also be a requirement too?
By creating this law what is the goal? To reduce poverty for children? To keep poor people from having children? To force people into providing stability for their children in a two parent home? What happens when people get married , follow the guidelines, pop out a baby, and STILL end up divorcing(which happens often), will they be punished? How much you want to bet, there will be some sham marriages or some woman marrying any eligible men they can find, with no intention on staying in this marriage after the baby is born, because she just married a man(any old man)n just so she could have a baby(kind of like women who get pregnant by anybody now)? When she leaves this marriage, or has this baby in this dysfunctional marriage is that still okay because she followed the guidelines? I suppose slip ups, mean a lot of woman will be running to get back alley abortions(if they are no longer available) to avoid punishments.
In addition, you really think cacs would implement this type of law, when there fertility rate is already declining? This would damn near take them out. And it would also take out a substantial amount of our population too. What it will probably produce is minimal deadbeat dads, but in place of it, it would probably produce many sham marriages for the sake of kids(mainly because women with biological clocks that will feel pressured into marrying any old body to have children). What would be the stipulation for couples that can't have children naturally--they have to wait five years before they can adopt too? Would there even be enough babies for them to adopt because of the large amount of population reduction that this type of law would produce? What about teenagers who end up getting pregnant on accident from having sex? Are they punished too? Matter of fact the only way to prevent single unmarried people from having babies, is to say "welp you guys just can't have sex until you get married, and then once your married, you have to have protected fail-proof sex for five years). How many brehs would be down for that?
I mean I can go on and on, but really this sort of law would not be able to happen simply because of all the above.
