The state is propping up a culture of low investment fatherhood and single motherhood. Three men were able to find 46 women willing to bear their children without any commitment or expectation of involved fatherhood - that's a really significant change from the norms of the past.
And society will bear the burden not only financially, but when these fatherless children hit their teens and can no longer be controlled by their mothers. A fair proportion of these children will join the ranks of an underclass.
This response to the situation isn't exactly encouraging:
Attorney Warren Campbell told Action News 5 if a person does not pay child support, the state ends up paying and there is no legal way to stop people from having children.
There might not be ways to stop people from having children, but there are ways to remove incentives to out of wedlock births.
What if the parents of those 46 women were expected to contribute to the welfare bill? Wouldn't that encourage a culture which respected marriage a bit more? What if the women received a payment, but only on the condition of a certain number of work hours in return? Wouldn't that then increase the value to these young women of men who actually had a job?
It's not looking good when it's so easy for these men to find so many women to make into single mothers. Something has to change.
It's simple. Women want to have children with sexy men who have lots of children with other women. The system when a man, not a scoiety, is responsible for providing only for his children is frown upon by women simply because, well, men who protect and provide are not sexy plus it limits success (number of children) of sexy men.
ReplyDeleteIn evolutionary sense women want men who can spread their genes as much as possible.
The solution is quite simple. No one gets welfare for children born out of wedlock. The first to object to my solution will be my fellow "pro-life" sentimentalists, because it might lead to more abortions. But, the equation is quite simple. A poor woman has a maternal instinct like any other woman. If she cannot find a man to marry her and support a child, but she hears that the government will support her and her child, then she faces a simple choice: Have no children, or have a child and get the government to support it. It is no mystery what choice she will make, especially when societal shaming and shunning of illegitimacy have vanished.
ReplyDeleteHave a kid out of wedlock, get your relatives to help out, or some private charity suckers. No government help. There is no other solution.
I was born a Tennessee and will always consider myself a Tennessean. This is just shameful and embarrassing.
ReplyDeleteNo one is willing to implement involuntary servitude as a punishment.
ReplyDeleteWhat these men have done is despicable and irresponsible. Having pre-marital sex and illegitimacy. Sweet.
ReplyDeleteThe solution is quite simple. No one gets welfare for children born out of wedlock. The first to object to my solution will be my fellow "pro-life" sentimentalists, because it might lead to more abortions.
That's quite a flawed assumption Clark Coleman. If anything pro-lifers support abandoning the welfare state for children born out of wedlock. Just because they don't like abortions, doesn't mean that they would support kids born out of wedlock. They just drop these children off at adoption charities or hurry to make the father marry the woman he impregnated. They usually send these kids "away" (aka abandonment).
When people see the harder life these illegitimate children have is when adults will stop having babies in these circumstances. The solution is not more abortions. Abortions should only be reserved when the mother's life is in danger or for mutations (not the despicable statistic where +80% of women have abortions for frivolous reasons such as "Not wanting it right now" or "Not being happy"). The solution is to reject sexual degeneracy.
ReplyDelete"When people see the harder life these illegitimate children have is when adults will stop having babies in these circumstances."
ReplyDeleteI really doubt this -- hasn't illegitimacy been around a while in the African-American community? And yet women have no problems being in denial about the consequences of their actions on their children.
Stronger measures are needed but society doesn't have the backbone to do it, especially because of liberal indoctrination about dignity.
Why do the poor, third worlders and "people of colour" seem to breed like rabbits and not take responsibility.
ReplyDeleteAnd what do you think their kids and grandkids will do? Copy their only life model.
Someone needs to give the men a fee vasectomy.
Sounds like a case Project Prevention ought to solve:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11545519
You can't have strong families without abolishing the welfare state.
Something has to give. This society is insane. I never thought the day will come that I would be happy with Islam taking over Europe.
ReplyDeleteit's so easy for these men to find so many women to make into single mothers. Something has to change.
ReplyDeleteMake women attracted to nice guys.
Unless they're not.
As long as these men didn't rape them, the women consented to the sex.
Hence the women wanted to have kids by them (since they did not abort).
Sadly, race and class confuse this issue.
ReplyDeleteThe question should be: do we want anyone breeding who has not demonstrated some ability above the average?
People are afraid of this question -- inequality -- but it's really the only valid one. Do we want to evolve upwards, or toward a lower standard?