Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Father Of 30 Wants A Break From Child Support  
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2882 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow...break-child-support-140439765.html

OK, what do you do with people like this? This guy is going to cost society a fortune in terms of welfare, schooling etc. And let's not forget that, in all likelyhood, many of his kids are likely to be deadbeats as well (stats show that children of single mothers have a much higher likelyhood of ending up badly).

So apart from the simple, snide comments of "cut 'em off", what are we realistically supposed to do with people like that?


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
88 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2782 times:

Don't let him off the hook for the child support (obviously). Not that it'll do much - the state will be paying for most of the cost of taking care of the kids anyway unless their mothers are far more capable people than their father is (and admittedly, that wouldn't take much).

But other than that, I really don't see how you can do anything about this after the fact. Unless you're going to make laws against having kids without the ability to pay for them (and talk abut the ultimate government intrusion into the bedroom), this sort of thing will be able to happen.

What you might be able to do is mandate sterilization for routine failure to be able to make child support payments. Won't do anything about the children that are already in the world, but in this case it would have prevented another nine from being born. And the cultural stigma of it might just be an effective deterrent.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13986 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2747 times:

As a former colleague from Nothern Ireland told another colleague (from South Africa), who was notorious for borrowing large amounts of money from his housemates without paying it back: (musical Belfast accent) "I want my money back tomorrow. If not I´ll get it back Belfast style!". The South African, after being briefed on what "Belfast style" (*) meant, paid back next day.

My opinion: You stick it in, you are responsible. He should have cut his bollocks off in time if he wouldn´t want to pay.

Jan


(*) Belfast style: At least a very good beating in soime back alley by several paramilitaries during the civil war. It could escalate to a "kneecapping" (shot into the knee joint from the back, so that the knee joint got busted or the leg placed over a curb stone and the knee crushed with a sledgehammer) as the last warning, or, finally, a bullet in the head out in a lonely place in the hills. Talk about Mafia style.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7255 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2745 times:

He's a productive S.O.B. I'll give him credit for that, but god almighty the women he was productive with must be dumb as a stump.

User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2061 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

The logical endpoint for a society full of carefree sex and broken families. I would be willing to bet money that all 12 of them came from single parent families. I would also be willing to bet that many of those 11 women have children from other men.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 2):


My opinion: You stick it in, you are responsible. He should have cut his bollocks off in time if he wouldn´t want to pay.

The funny thing is that for women get it the other way around! Let someone stick it in? Suddenly she's not responsible, the state/parents/healthcare have to pay for her abortions, emergency contraceptive or she can get TANF in the US but for the man. He should have his manhood taken away! I'm sure we won't see the same uproar that we did after Rush called that woman a slut.

I certainly don't have any solutions to this problem, I doubt there is anything you can do about it except give the mothers welfare.


User currently offlineAirstud From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2652 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2702 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
I certainly don't have any solutions to this problem, I doubt there is anything you can do about it except give the mothers welfare.

Not a solution in my book; it's enabling. Desmond Hachett is a turd and a loser and everything else people on this thread are saying about him, but a lot of the responsibility for this mess is on the women.

In the U.S. there are plenty of women who get themselves knocked up with complete irresponsibility, because, mirabile dictu, our government pays them to do that.



Pancakes are delicious.
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2061 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

Quoting Airstud (Reply 5):

Not a solution in my book; it's enabling.

These things have to be stopped before they start. You can't let 30 kids starve on the streets just because their parents are deadbeats.

Absolutely it is the government, simple economics, if you want more of something -subsidise it. Subsidising single motherhood by poor women gives you poor women with lots of children. How would you phase something like this out though?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2574 times:

First and foremost, in order to stop this guy and others like him; failure to adequately support your children should be a criminal offense. Yes, he should go to prison if he can not care for his progeny.

Next, we have to look at our entitlement state. We have to look at it, dismantle it, and rebuild a system that encourages productive behaviour and discourages destructive behaviour.

A common, economic axiom is that if you want to discourage a behaviour, you tax it. The inverse, as noted by QFA380, is that if you subsidize a behavior, you encourage it. Now, I'm not saying we tax motherhood or childbirth, in fact, we should encourage people to have children. It is how we can sustain a growing economy. But, those entering society must, eventually, contribute to the economy and society, rather than take.

But, how do we do that? We have lost a generation. The war on poverty has absolutely decimated the inner city. Few work. And few are expected to work. We pour money into these areas with the false hope that money alone is the answer. But, by giving money, without condition, we are encouraging behaviours that are, not only destructive to the recipients, but to society as a whole.

An example. I've a friend who is a teacher. He teaches 'at risk' kids. These are kids that have been kicked out of their schools because they were too disruptive or violent. Outside my friend's classroom door are 2 security guards that help maintain order in this class.

In the wake of some shootings here in town this passed week, we were discussing his class and students. He mentioned that if a student, who does not have a diagnosed learning disability, is 2 grade levels below his age (i.e. a 16 year old in the 8th grade), the guardians receive an increased payment in order to help them deal with this non-disability disability. So, what's a guardian to do?

We need to pay attention to the activities we encourage and subsidize.

There is no easy fix. It has been over a generation in the making, it won't be unmade in an election cycle.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
The logical endpoint for a society full of carefree sex and broken families.

Also the logical endpoint for a society in which women aren't empowered enough to demand that he use a friggin' condom.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
First and foremost, in order to stop this guy and others like him; failure to adequately support your children should be a criminal offense. Yes, he should go to prison if he can not care for his progeny.

The trouble with this is that if he goes to prison, he can't pay child support.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
But, how do we do that? We have lost a generation. The war on poverty has absolutely decimated the inner city. Few work. And few are expected to work. We pour money into these areas with the false hope that money alone is the answer. But, by giving money, without condition, we are encouraging behaviours that are, not only destructive to the recipients, but to society as a whole.
Quoting Airstud (Reply 5):
In the U.S. there are plenty of women who get themselves knocked up with complete irresponsibility, because, mirabile dictu, our government pays them to do that.

You are both exactly right. We are literally selectively breeding people who are good at nothing but --ready for it?-- breeding!

The first thing that we need to accept is that people are going to have sex and that expecting them to stop is not valid social policy. That's the bit that conservatives can't get; punishing the kids of irresponsible parents isn't going to stop the parents from being irresponsible. I work in these communities every day as a physician. I know the mindset. Many of these mothers are teenagers who had a baby basically as a pet, or as a tool to try to keep the baby daddy (isn't it sad that "baby daddy" is now a part of regular vocab?) in a relationship, or so that people will think they're all grown up, or know they aren't a virgin. And boys get girls pregnant basically to "tag" them.

The next thing that we need to do is start punishing the people who have children that they can't support. Not the children themselves, but the parents. The first rule of welfare should be: to be on welfare you must be on a reliable form of birth control. The second rule of welfare is that you do not keep kids that you have while on welfare. They are removed as soon as the cord is cut; you never see them, and they go to good adoptive parents. There also needs to be a way of dealing with repeat offenders (forced sterilization after three? I dunno.) You can have as many kids as you like as long as you pay for them yourself.

Within about 40 years, we'd see the end of the ghetto. It's draconian, but it would work.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
he can't pay child support

He isn't paying anyway. Put him in prison and he will cease to reproduce.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The next thing that we need to do is start punishing the people who have children that they can't support

How? They have committed no crime. And, I'm not sure I want to live in a society that has criminalized having a child.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The second rule of welfare is that you do not keep kids that you have while on welfare.

I'm going to disagree. I grew up in a household that took a form of welfare money (WIC). We all turned out ok. As soon as we were old enough to fend for ourselves (read that as: in school and capable of walking to and from school on our own) my Mom took a part time job. She was home when we got home. As we got older, she went full time. Long story, short: our family became productive members of society and have given back way more than we took.
But, I agree, there has to be a tipping point. A point where a mother (or mother and father) are told "no more". "If you have another child, it will become a ward of the state because you can't afford to raise it properly."

What point is that? Do we set preconditions to WIC, SNAP and all the other 'assistance' programs?

Whatever happens, something has to change, because we are encouraging a set of behaviours that are devastating to families and communities.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
I'm going to disagree. I grew up in a household that took a form of welfare money (WIC).

My question is: why would a parent have kids if they are going to need WIC? WIC should exist for people who have kids and who have come across hard times, not for people who want the government to pay for their new baby and the next six.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
But, I agree, there has to be a tipping point. A point where a mother (or mother and father) are told "no more". "If you have another child, it will become a ward of the state because you can't afford to raise it properly."

So how many kids is that? Two? Six? Eight? Seventeen?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
Put him in prison and he will cease to reproduce.

And cost money for the taxpayers. A mandatory vasectomy would make more sense. Too bad it's considered a violation of his "civil rights," but imprisoning him isn't.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

BTW, wasn't this the dude who said he "didn't mean" to father 30 kids?

Yeah... You just accidentally tripped and fell on top of all those women, right?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2375 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
My question is: why would a parent have kids if they are going to need WIC? WIC should exist for people who have kids and who have come across hard times, not for people who want the government to pay for their new baby and the next six.

Fair point. We came across the Atlantic and my parents added another after we were here. But, I seriously doubt they added my sister t qualify for more aid. In fact, her arrival may have pushed us over. Don't know, I was busy paying with sticks. Th

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
So how many kids is that? Two? Six? Eight? Seventeen?

Good question. Who decides what that point is and when it is reached?

I say, before a dime is dispersed, the 'baby daddy' must be identified. Then he can be held to account and tossed in jail if he can't provide support. That takes him out of the baby making equation.

This can't and shouldn't be easy, but eventually, the word 'family' will re-enter the lexicon of the inner-city (and, I don't pretend this is just an inner-city issue, I'm sure Appalachia is just as screwed up) and we can start building our communities again.

But, of course there has to be political will to say 'no more'. And, that's just not going to happen.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
And cost money for the taxpayers. A mandatory vasectomy would make more sense. Too bad it's considered a violation of his "civil rights," but imprisoning him isn't.

I'd go for the vasectomy (and let's not forget the tubal ligation for the more prolific breeders on the female, but you're right...won't happen. I assure you, tossing his ass in jail will be less costly to the state than another cradle to grave baby.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

The real men are the ones who support his children through taxes and performing social services... they are the real fathers of those children. The guy is just a clown.

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2301 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 12):
I say, before a dime is dispersed, the 'baby daddy' must be identified. Then he can be held to account and tossed in jail if he can't provide support.

The last thing we need is more people in jail. We have the largest prison population per capita in the world. No more putting nonviolent offenders in prison. It has to stop. Snip it and be done with it.

The other side of the coin has to be liberal access to birth control.


User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1172 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
So apart from the simple, snide comments of "cut 'em off", what are we realistically supposed to do with people like that?

Time for the state to 'invest' in getting this guy a forced vasectomy/castration. Doesn't sound nice but it has to be done.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
The logical endpoint for a society full of carefree sex and broken families. I would be willing to bet money that all 12 of them came from single parent families. I would also be willing to bet that many of those 11 women have children from other men.

  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The next thing that we need to do is start punishing the people who have children that they can't support.

There is a big difference between having babies while on welfare and having babies, falling on hard times and up-taking welfare (hopefully temporarily). I'm very much opposed on punishing those on welfare whose kids were conceived before they were on welfare. Bottom line is that its not fair to punish kids just because their parents are poor.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
The first rule of welfare should be: to be on welfare you must be on a reliable form of birth control.

  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
He isn't paying anyway. Put him in prison and he will cease to reproduce.

Put him in prison and it costs the taxpayer more than it would cost for a vasectomy. Give him a castration/vasectomy and let him spend the rest of his insignificant life paying (some of) the child support costs.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 9):
But, I agree, there has to be a tipping point. A point where a mother (or mother and father) are told "no more". "If you have another child, it will become a ward of the state because you can't afford to raise it properly."

   Making lots of babies that the state has to support isn't a valid career option.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
So how many kids is that? Two? Six? Eight? Seventeen?

Two. Women as a whole need to have an average of 2.1 children to maintain a constant population. Poorer people can have less children than that, richer people can have slightly more. People on benefits shouldn't have any children while the state supports them, though i guess this depends on how much state support they are receiving.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
BTW, wasn't this the dude who said he "didn't mean" to father 30 kids?
Yeah... You just accidentally tripped and fell on top of all those women, right?

  



Air New Zealand; first to commercially fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19516 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 15):
There is a big difference between having babies while on welfare and having babies, falling on hard times and up-taking welfare (hopefully temporarily). I'm very much opposed on punishing those on welfare whose kids were conceived before they were on welfare. Bottom line is that its not fair to punish kids just because their parents are poor.

I agree completely. Punishing the children is the Conservative answer. Take away their food, their schools, their healthcare. That isn't going to stop irresponsible people from having kids.

You have to punish the PARENTS, not the kids. And I agree, 9mo moratorium after going on welfare.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
I agree completely. Punishing the children is the Conservative answer.

Oh crap, here you go again. I was hoping to keep this thread non-political.

Speaking as a conservative, I reject your notion - utterly. It comes from your own self-righteousness.

My suggestion: For unwed mothers: If you become pregnant while on income assistance, you will lose such all such assistance. Your child will be given over for adoption by parents who want a child and can give him a good home, and if there are no takers right away, the funds that would have gone to you as assistance will be diverted to fund the child's stay at either foster care or an orphanage. And you lose your qualification to receive income assistance - forever. Such irresponsibility will not be subsidized.

For unwed fathers - particularly deadbeats - Same deal. No more foodstamps - those funds get diverted to the kid's welfare. If you owe more in child support than you can afford, we should think about some form of debtors prison, where you will be clothed, fed and housed, but be made to work full time at whatever jobs the prison contracts - picking vegetables, cleaning roadsides, etc. The wage will be fair, but 100% will go to supporting the child(ren).

Voluntary sterilization can gain you back a few privileges, but not all.

The conservative in me squirms at such harsh, statist measures. But over the past few generations, out of wedlock children to parents who are irresponsible and unable to afford children has become more and more of a problem. We could maybe tolerate tolerate it when it was a few percent of all births, but now it's 41%. It's got to be shut down.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3359 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
The conservative in me squirms at such harsh, statist measures. But over the past few generations, out of wedlock children to parents who are irresponsible and unable to afford children has become more and more of a problem. We could maybe tolerate tolerate it when it was a few percent of all births, but now it's 41%. It's got to be shut down.

41% in the US. Other industrialized countries don't have these issues to that extent and in fact many aren't having enough children and run the risk of being extinct relatively soon, Japan comes to mind. You also discount that the fact that more and more people simply aren't getting married because they fail to see the point.

I am of the opinion that a marriage is not necessary to raise a child if the parents are committed to each other, also parents who fall out of love shouldn't stay together for the sake of their kids because that can make the kids more aggressive in nature and worse off.

You can't have it both ways, you can propose all the things you mentioned eariler in your post which will probably end up costing the taxpayer more than the status quo. You want to cut them off but (not necessarily you) conservatives don't want them learning proper sex ed either and subsidizing the pill, the patch or even the birth control needle which works for about 3 menstrual cycles would be the cheapest option. The latter two don't have to be taken every day which I will concede that I would fear with someone on welfare missing pills.

That could have prevented the birth of all of these kids (99% perfect use) at far less cost. I get you don't feel you want to pay for that but it is far cheaper than investigating and mandating even a vasectomy for a man (the cheapest of the sterilization procedures and even they fail sometimes).

The reality is that people are going to get it on, dumb or smart, fertile or not. It is the reason that humans dominate this planet and its simply in our nature so stopping sex is a waste of time. I saw a girl last week taking the pill on the tram and she was 17 or 18 and I have to say that she has her s*it together, because whether or not she is having sex at least she is limiting her chance of an accident.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 15):
Two. Women as a whole need to have an average of 2.1 children to maintain a constant population. Poorer people can have less children than that, richer people can have slightly more. People on benefits shouldn't have any children while the state supports them, though i guess this depends on how much state support they are receiving.

Here is the problem though, the better off you are the less children you have. Also mandating how many children one has is something China does

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
The last thing we need is more people in jail. We have the largest prison population per capita in the world. No more putting nonviolent offenders in prison. It has to stop. Snip it and be done with it.

  

Quoting zkojq (Reply 15):
There is a big difference between having babies while on welfare and having babies, falling on hard times and up-taking welfare (hopefully temporarily).

Easy solution mandate contraception when receiving welfare. Even though it can fail, the chances are reduced significantly, I wonder if male contraception will be out soon so both genders can protect against pregnancy with condoms of course



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2220 times:

You can't interfere with the conception process, there are far too many connotations with that - far too many parallels in history that you don't want to be associated with.

What you can do is sequester any and all income both parents have above a basic level of living - paying for cable? Nope, not any more. Got a new iPhone? Nope, not any more. Etc etc etc. When you come off welfare, then you can have nice things. Here's your basic tv and DVD. Here's your library pass. Here's your community college IT room pass. Here's your inbound-only phone line.

Don't give the parents money - give them what they need, but only at a level thats basic enough to survive comfortably on. A state owned property. Plastic furniture. OTA tv. Basic ingredients for three meals a day - have someone actually deliver those ingredients, don't let them shop for it with state money. Go as far as state issued clothes - no bling, just ordinary no-brand jeans, tshirt etc.

These people need to realise that living on state aid is not a nice thing. It helps you to live, but not to enjoy that living. The goal is to get off it as soon as they can.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9281 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2198 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 7):
and rebuild a system that encourages productive behaviour

LOL, he is productive, by all means  


besides that, the state cannot do a thing. That is what a free society has to accept and see nthat the se children become, unlike their father, respoonsible citizens.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 20):
That is what a free society has to accept and see nthat the se children become, unlike their father, respoonsible citizens.

In order for that to happen, the children have to be removed from that environment in order to break the cycle.

But, Liberal judges refuse to do that. Liberal activists claim that a child is almost always better with its parents.

Let's all be very clear on this...it is Liberal, social policies that have brought us to this point. (see Doc, I can do it too)

Back on point...we can't forceable sterilize anyone, especially a non-violent offender. We can criminilize 'failure to support' and remove that person from society (for a bit). Yes, I know our prisons are full of non-violent offenders, but our streets are full of unsupported children who can only guess at their lineage and have little hope of breaking out of the cycle.

Hell, instead of prison, make it a freaking work camp. Dig a hole here, fill the hole there. I don't care. Prevent these deadbeat dads from making more babies.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9281 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 21):
Hell, instead of prison, make it a freaking work camp. Dig a hole here, fill the hole there. I don't care. Prevent these deadbeat dads from making more babies.

It has nothing to do with liberal or social or whatever. A country that observes the basic human rights must not even think about forced sterilization, work camps or similar. No offense, but the US locks up too many people already for minor matters which in most European countries would not even qiualify for a police questioning.

OTH - we recently had a thread here about an Indian couple living in Norway which had their kid taken away. Norway is liberal, it is a socialist society and it does exactly that. I think instead of locking up adults for petty crimes, the money should be spend educating children and if their parents can't do it, forcing their kids to live in an unbearable environment, the state should take the obligation.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8827 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 months 4 days ago) and read 2137 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 22):
It has nothing to do with liberal or social or whatever. A country that observes the basic human rights must not even think about forced sterilization, work camps or similar. No offense, but the US locks up too many people already for minor matters which in most European countries would not even qiualify for a police questioning.

I agree with you in that we should never be going down that road. But the fact of the matter is that you have millions of people having kids who have no business having them, and they end up being themselves a problem because their stupid parents are unable to raise them properly.

Some 100+ years ago, the Progressive movement was started with the practice of forcible sterilization and incarceration of undesirables. Margeret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and an icon of Progressivism, has the following quotes to her credit:

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:
In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107

On motherhood:
"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

That was the Progressive solution. I think everyone agrees that such heavy-handed tactics (of which Hitler's Holocaust was but a logical 'next step') are distasteful in the extreme - even to today's progressives (although I'm not sure why that is).

The conservative solution would be to attack those things that encourage irresponsible pregnancy. All these safety nets, which were put in place for the noble cause of helping those who are truly in need, have been abused.

100 years ago, this particular gentleman in question would never have fathered so many kids by so many women. After the first few children, whose care would almost certainly have fallen to his maternal grandparents, he would have been found and shot. If he escaped that fate, he would be ostracized by everyone in society, because of the stigma associated in irresponsibly fathering multiple children and leaving the mothers to fend for themselves. It did not happen that often back then because the consequences (financial and social) would be very much present in the kids' minds, before they found their way behind the haystacks.

Today, young girls see having kids of their own as some sort of 'proof of adulthood' (as if physical ability were the same as mental maturity), some sort of romantic dream, or just a life-size doll, with little thought to the consequences. And guys like to tag every willing piece of ass they can (and brag about it), and they don't need to stick around.

I think most would agree that if we can get irresponsible childbearing to have serious social and financial consequences once again, the incidence will come down without the need for drastic measures such as forced sterilization.

So circling back to the question - How do you do that?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 18):
I am of the opinion that a marriage is not necessary to raise a child if the parents are committed to each other, also parents who fall out of love shouldn't stay together for the sake of their kids because that can make the kids more aggressive in nature and worse off.

I disagree. If you are committed to each other, why not actually make the commitment? That's all marriage is - it's an overt and explicit promise. And yes, you should hang in there and make it work for the sake of the kids if life is not so rosy 10 years down the road. It's called responsibility. You started a family, you need to stick around and finish the job until the kids are old enough to strike out on their own.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9281 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2108 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 23):
So circling back to the question - How do you do that?

I wasn't going to say that actually but let me phrase it this way - pretty much on the date 67 years ago the US Army liberated Germany from a hoard of criminals that took over Germany 12 years before. They picked out certain groups of people and did all that what some here suggest. The rest is history and the basic human rights are paramoiunt and have to be obesreved by any Government, certainly by a democratic elected. To be honest, I'm a bit disturbed about some replies here.

I think no one has the recipe aginst such people, but someone fathering 30 children with 11 women is rather an exeption.

Teach values at school, be more liberal in general, take the under privilged along when building a society, spend the money on social workers rather than jailing someone who cannot take care of his kids which then automatically produces catch 22 because that guy will not get a job because he was jailed and then he really cannot take care of his children, even if intended.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
25 Dreadnought : But that is what has produced the current problem. How do you correct that?
26 StarAC17 : That's your opinion but with the divorce rate the way it is, its not a very serious thing to begin with. That commitment can be there without a weddi
27 FlyPNS1 : The irony though is that state sponsored "birth control" is considered evil and socialist. Instead, society will pay far more money to care for all th
28 Post contains links Dreadnought : The Illegitimate birthrate in 1917 (the first year they were officially recorded) was 2% of all births. 3.5% in 1930, 3.8% in 1940, 4% in 1950, 5.3%
29 fr8mech : I disagree. One of the reasons we're at this point is because the State has taken the place of the father. It wasn't a long time ago when some of the
30 FlyPNS1 : Again, this all goes back to my point of people getting married much later in life. People are still reproducing just as they were before, the big di
31 Flighty : I would say no food -- but anyway, I am not uptight about treating all children the same. My children should come before children whose fathers did n
32 DocLightning : It's not Democrats looking to cut food stamps, SCHIP, VFC, and other such programs. It's Republicans. As it happens, I agree with your idea, as well.
33 Newark727 : Does that make you a progressive from 100+ years ago too? We're still talking about removing someone's ability to reproduce, ever, because someone (w
34 fr8mech : These, and other programs have given us these problems. Conservatives don't want these programs eliminated. We want these programs to be responsible.
35 Newark727 : All I can see the Republican House trying to do so far is just take money out of them, which isn't exactly the same thing as you're describing.
36 fr8mech : Here's what I'm uncomfortable with. Policies that reward stupid, irresponsible behaviour. Policies that allow a man to skip out on his obligations be
37 FlyPNS1 : Maybe, but you'll also get more abortions (something conservatives hate), more babies thrown in dumpsters and more babies dropped off at doorsteps of
38 Post contains images Mir : Not to mention that the threat of jail probably wouldn't be all that effective. A vasectomy, on the other hand...it would seem that the sort of peopl
39 Dreadnought : The difference is that, as Doc pointed out Add the early-20th century progressives to that group. They wanted to limit the growth of the black popula
40 DocLightning : If an organization is run by Jehova's Witnesses, should they be permitted to deny insurance that covers blood transfusions? Should organizations be p
41 Newark727 : The way I see it it's not the social apocalypse people make it out to be, that occasionally it takes a lot of taxpayer dollars to cover for some idio
42 Mir : Why contraception, then? This issue has come up time and time again in recent months due to all the bills considered and passed in both state and fed
43 DocLightning : Believe me, if you take a walk in my shoes and see how these communities are, you'd change your tune. I'd add one more rule: NO CHILD MAY HAVE CHILDR
44 fr8mech : You're right. Not the best solution. But, as distasteful as abortion is to me, it is allowed and it is an option. Truth is, it's only a little more d
45 DocLightning : No it is not. In fact, most PP locations don't even offer abortion. So an employer could say: "We don't believe in medicine or surgery at all." You'r
46 Post contains images fr8mech : And, the starry eyed liberal point-of-view (not an attack on Newark727, per se, but on Liberalism). Really, this isn't that much of a problem. It's n
47 Post contains images Mir : We have laws on the books banning any public money going to fund abortion. Those laws have been around for a while, and Planned Parenthood as taken f
48 fr8mech : Yup, go work somewhere else. Or secure your own insurance. You knew, or should have known, the score when you signed on. Sorry Doc, that's just the w
49 fr8mech : Getting away from the subject of our prolific father and his 11 paramours and their 30 off-spring, but you lost me.... Which institution are you refe
50 Dreadnought : The Dems wanted the minimum coverage to have everything, including psychiatric care, contraception, dental etc. The GOP were not allowed to bring any
51 DocLightning : "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." Under your proposal, there would be no employer-sponsored health insurance in the USA, period. That
52 fr8mech : And, that would not have been a bad thing. But, that cat is out of the bag and it has become common place for employers to provide health benefits fo
53 Post contains images Dreadnought : So basically you are saying that Mother Theresa's Missionaries of Charity are not a religious institution. Good job The very essence of the Christian
54 Mir : Well then try this First Amendment issue on: I want to start a company. I want to provide my employees with health insurance, and law requires that t
55 luckyone : I don't think that's government intrusion at all. In my humble opinion it's quite simple. If you're incapable of supporting yourself, why should peop
56 Mir : It would mean the government would have to determine the standard for who is financially capable of having a child. That is a lot of government intru
57 Newark727 : A pertinent question both for my proposed solutions - and yours as well. Unless I have you mistaken for someone else, you want compulsive population
58 Flighty : I really believe we are one family, and if some of us choose to have children, the rest of the family can put our hands out and be paid by that family
59 Dreadnought : I agree - so why is the government insisting that they are not religious? In the case of the Missionaries, the people who work there are nuns - the w
60 luckyone : No determination needed. If you're on public assistance and without an income...you're not financially capable. And if you like that would include ME
61 StarAC17 : I wish that were true and while it partially is there is much intolerance done in the name of Christianity. It's not just limited to them but many ot
62 DocLightning : Then they are quite free to close their hospitals, or to cease being affiliated with them. Agreed. Some do. Cutting the program and improving means t
63 Mir : It's not so much insisting that they are not religious as not treating them any differently from a similar secular charity. The work they do is good,
64 PanHAM : The motto was "Unworthy Life" - now, who decides which life is worthy and which is unworthy? You did not need to belong to "certain groups" - like Ro
65 Mir : No determination on what life is worthy and what isn't is being made. Nobody is being killed. I don't think you choose to have Down Syndrome. That's
66 PanHAM : Mir, you can turn it whichever way you want, whatever is suggeested here is what we call "Stammtisch" in German and violates basic human rights. It do
67 Mir : How so? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides for the right to found a family. What the man mentioned in the OP did is not that - his ch
68 Post contains images phette : He made a commitment when he procreated There are no excuses. If I have to be held accountable for the things I do in life, so should everyone else. I
69 Post contains images Dreadnought : I don't think I've ever agreed with an entire post of yours before...
70 moo : I find it ... amusing that some on this thread actually advocate forced surgery as a means to an end - what are you going to do, restrain the man unti
71 bjorn14 : I would be willing to pay for one 'mistake' or even two but at some point we have to say no particularly to mothers.....we aren't paying for any more.
72 fr8mech : We are not talking about an individual that runs a business; we are talking about a religious organization that runs a business. There is a rather su
73 Post contains images Mir : See, we'll make a sensible person of you yet! As you said, vasectomies normally aren't done under GA. But that is something that would have to be wor
74 Post contains images Dreadnought : Here is a home vasectomy kit: Which, in association with each other, becomes an organization.
75 Post contains links and images DocLightning : All of those are inherent characteristics and not based on chosen behavior. Nobody here suggests sterilization or imprisonment based on inherent char
76 PanHAM : What for? Making children like a rabbit? No child support? Not really. This guy would never need to work again, at least not as long as he has to sup
77 L410Turbolet : Easier said than done. The moment anyone tries to enact this it will end up in court with very much predictable outcome. This is no different than du
78 moo : My wife is a medical professional, and her response was "why would any surgeon wish to risk a major bump in their fatality figures by doing an electi
79 Flighty : Paid for by whom? Why should the government threaten me with violence if I refuse to pay my taxes, but this guy has no obligations at all? If we don'
80 PanHAM : The tax payers, who else? I am just describing the situation as is. I am not offering solutions. But the society you have in the USA will be more vio
81 fr8mech : Maybe we need to stop that. Or, at least look very hard at the policies we use and the assumptions we make when determining who we pay and how much.
82 Post contains images PanHAM : You have to treat all people equal. One of the basic matters in a democracy. yes, but for long and on which grounds will you jail him? Last time I ch
83 fr8mech : No, you have to treat them fairly. How is it fair to leave a child in that environment? How is it fair to encourage women to continue to have babies
84 aerorobnz : anything more than replacement value of the parents. The world has too many people and it is necessary to curtail excess breeding. Compulsory sterili
85 fr8mech : Horse-shit. So long as the family can support and properly raise the children, more power to them. That's an idea...
86 DocLightning : I don't want to put him in jail. I want to snip his vasa deferens and keep him from making more children that he can neglect. I agree. It will requir
87 phatfarmlines : We've had this discussion before about something similar. The women, IMO, hold more responsibility for not keeping their thighs closed. I would recomm
88 Flighty : Meaningless term. There is no American who doesn't make enough to eat. Rice is cheap. People who want more than that have every opportunity in this c
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
No Child Support/ No Passport Question posted Sat Sep 6 2008 15:07:37 by MCOflyer
The Child Support Agency posted Mon Dec 17 2007 15:11:50 by Sbworcs
Larry Birkhead Is The Father Of Dannielynn posted Tue Apr 10 2007 21:46:48 by AeroWesty
New Member Of Congress Wants Koran For Swearing-In posted Fri Dec 1 2006 20:20:41 by Falcon84
Father Of School Shooter Arrested posted Fri Oct 13 2006 05:56:09 by Johnboy79
Father Of All Time posted Sat Aug 5 2006 02:54:10 by Greasespot
Lawsuit Seeks Right To Decline Child Support posted Thu Mar 9 2006 04:31:50 by Flyingbronco05
Man Punches Teachers Aide: Gets Father Of The Year posted Wed Jan 25 2006 22:21:36 by Airlinelover
Father Of "American Taliban" Asks Bush 4 Clemency posted Fri Jan 20 2006 01:56:13 by Airlinelover
Father Of 77 Gives Family Planning Advice posted Thu Jul 28 2005 00:32:27 by Alcregular
Man Punches Teachers Aide: Gets Father Of The Year posted Wed Jan 25 2006 22:21:36 by Airlinelover
Father Of "American Taliban" Asks Bush 4 Clemency posted Fri Jan 20 2006 01:56:13 by Airlinelover
Father Of 77 Gives Family Planning Advice posted Thu Jul 28 2005 00:32:27 by Alcregular