Officials manhandle reproductive issues

  Doug Lief Lief is a fourth-year English
student. If you or any of your relatives can give a young comedy
writer his big break, e-mail him at [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Doug Lief

A few weeks ago the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that until
deadbeat dad David Oakley pays off the $25,000 he owes for his nine
children (with four different women), he is forbidden from
procreation under penalty of eight years in prison.

In my humble opinion, yikes!

This decision immediately tells me two things. First, it must
get really cold and lonely in Wisconsin. Second, if a
father’s ability to procreate is dependent on providing the
woman with financial compensation, then by definition, your mom is
a whore.

Wisconsinites reacted strongly to the decision, saying
“Aww jeez, ya know?”

The decision won by four male justices to three female justices.
Dissenting justice Anne Bradley said she would have voted with the
men but for their “uniformly unsatisfactory level of
cooties.”

Anyway, the rationale behind the ruling was that under normal
circumstances, Oakley would go directly to jail, not pass Go, and
his kids wouldn’t see $200. Since he would be unable to
procreate in prison anyway, why not let him stay outside and pay
off his debt while keeping the family jewels in their safe deposit
box?

  Illustration by ERICA PINTO/Daily Bruin Unfortunately,
given Oakley’s record, it seems “sperm donor” is
the only vocation he has an aptitude for. Thus, faced with the very
real possibility of having to actually get a job, he decided to do
the American thing and go to court.

Oakley’s lawyers tried to make a favorable impression,
citing that their client had won a very rigorous and famous contest
against George Costanza, Cosmo Kramer, Jerry Seinfeld and Elaine
Benes. (If you don’t get that reference, dock yourself 200
pop culture points).

The greatest intellectual minds were asked to give their two
shillings or kroners (depending on which country you believe
intellectuals come from). When reached for comment,
Radiohead’s Thom Yorke responded “Alien prostitute
machine. Nobodyleavesherealiveyousmelllikemommy. Buboes! Hello
kitty?”

To me the judges had the right idea in limiting Oakley’s
“special ladyfriend” access while allowing him to work.
Their basis for doing so, however, was that they weren’t
completely prohibiting Oakley’s right to procreate. Instead,
they merely attached a few restrictive provisos which are only as
strong as Oakley’s button fly.

Simply put, this matter is poorly suited for family or criminal
court. Since most men liken their penises to cars and vice versa, I
propose we resolve these things in traffic court.

For example, having sexual intercourse without a condom could
carry the same fine as driving without a seat belt. Public
masturbation, a la George Michael, should be treated as driving
solo in the carpool lane.

Just as your car is immobilized by an orange metal apparatus for
too many unpaid fines, Oakley’s lack of child support is
grounds to apply what I will lovingly refer to as “the penis
boot.” And as an added penalty, the car boot and penis boot
should be of equal size.

Many of the court’s detractors are pro-choice activists,
who claim the controversial precedent is a slippery slope for the
repeal of reproductive rights.

In reality, pro-lifers and pro-choosers (well, what would you
call them?) should see that this kind of punishment circumvents the
whole abortion issue by cutting the serpent’s head off, so to
speak.

It seems men put a whole lot more time and care into the
treatment of their cars than that of their little Mario Andrettis.
We wouldn’t have to worry about deadbeat dads or abortions at
all if men could keep it in their pants in the first place.

But before all my female readers clink their Powerpuff Girls
mugs in triumph, let’s not forget that Oakley’s
children are from four different mothers. That means four of you
ladies were dumb or drunk enough to fall for one of the biggest
losers the species has to offer.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is merely trying to retroactively do
what Darwin obviously couldn’t. No one wants to admit that
the ultimate underlying cause of deadbeat dads and the abortion
ethical conundrum is simply that the wrong people are getting it
on. But as the gender lopsided Wisconsin Supreme Court decision
shows, we know who’s doing the thinking with what around
here.

If we define a child’s well-being as protection against
its own parents’ deficiency, can the government succeed where
numerous Jerry Springer interventions have failed (today’s
show: Skinny 40-year-old Sleazebags and their Obese Seventh Grade
Wives, “Hey, don’t you judge me!”)?

If we don’t say “blech” somewhere along the
line for ourselves, then maybe it’s time for a government
office of You-Can-Do-Better.

Catherine Weiss of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project
in New York told the Los Angeles Times that “(t)here’s
a long, ugly history of attempts by the government to control the
reproduction of poor people.”

We can always fall back on Jonathan Swift’s modest
proposal, but history has shown that the government always fails
when it tries to legislate against fun, and procreating is most
certainly that.

Given that Oakley is a 34-year-old unemployed ex-factory worker
with a felony record and a penchant for buggery, I’d say
being poor isn’t stopping anybody from doing anything.

Is it right for the government to substitute its judgement for
our beer goggles? Can the government decide who gets to
procreate?

We’d all love to have a master race. Who wouldn’t?
There are all sorts of perks to being a genetically defined
ubermensch. For example, ubermensches get twenty percent off at all
participating Carls Jrs., Fast-Passes at Disneyland and first crack
at metamorphosing into giant cockroaches. (That one was worth 55
Pretentious German points).

Although the right to freely procreate is at stake in this case,
what is really on trial is the fundamental right to be a complete
idiot. We legislate all manner of roadblocks to prevent prevent
complete idiots from driving recklessly or contaminating food.

The basic endeavor is to keep idiots from stopping things (e.g.
traffic, production, life), but we do nothing to stop idiots from
dictating the future. They vote, they screw, and now one is
litigating the voting and screwing.

We alphas and betas get to live with the consequences or
preventing epsilons from hurting themselves until the whole country
is the kid whose mother makes him wear a bicycle helmet at
school.

Meanwhile, Oakley is spending huge sums of money on his appeal
to the Supreme Court, money that should be going to the real
victims in this fiasco, his children. But that’s not nearly
as important to him as buying back the use of his vas deferens.

Drive safely!