Well, socialism supporters are voting this year, too, so it all balances out.
Single Women Should Not Get Birth Certificates for Their Babies
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Well, socialism supporters are voting this year, too, so it all balances out.
So the moment you announce this new rule, everyone you currently label a welfare queen will immediately make rational decisions and stop having babies? Let's just say a few more do pop out... your suggestion is to let them die because it's the only way to get these dead beat moms to stop having kids. You don't at all think that allowing the child, who I'd like to think we can all agree is innocent here, to die in order to teach dead beat mom a lesson is problematic?
Well, I didn't see anything in this proposal that involved letting anyone die.
The likely outcome is that the mother is deemed unable to care for her child and said child becomes a ward of the state.
You guys are full of confidence in the state, right?
I'll ask you again...does a father who willingly chooses to avoid his fiduciary responsibility towards his children and otherwise behaves well as a father qualify as a good father in your mind?
OMG...oh wise and all knowing one...if the father is not recorded on the birth certificate AND until the mother was essentially coerced to provide the father's name, the state did not know who the father was...what process exists to allow the state to know who is the father? Perhaps there is some other method, IDK...but then why did the state worker tell me what she did? It doesn't make sense.
My issue isn't the BC proper, it is the deliberate concealment of the father and the subsequent use of public funds to support children...while the dad is doing his thing free and clear. I know it happens.
What I have used my children's BC's for is irrelevant, as I have never for a second shirked my responsibility as a father and allowed to the state(taxpayers) stand in as their provider.
Yep. One. And amazingly we had a kid when we were ready to take care of one. It has been incredibly easy to not have kids before we were ready (financially or otheriwise) or not have any more than we be able to care for
Last edited:
If a mother cant take care of her kid without the government having to foot the bill, the mother shouldnt have the kid. Chances are that parent wont be much involved in their kids life or have any idea what their kids are doing or who they are doing it with anyway.
And i would support sterilization ror repeat offenders
But he'll undoubtedly be taught how to be a judgmental butthole. It's a sad cycle.
I have a question for you bleeding hearts. Why are you people against any sort of responsibility and or accountability wnen it comes to those who have to rely on the government to get through their lives? While ol Ragle wants to throw out the idea that people will just continue to squirt out babies regardless, why do you think that continuing to throw money at these people and enabling this lifestyle is the solution. Why do you not expect that these people are unable to even be productive members of society and are fine with allowing them to sit back, do nothing but breed and collect $?
I am assuming ragle, as well as wwjd believe like theIowaHawk does that these people are incable of actually striving for self sufficiency or have any others strings attached to go along with the welfare cashcow they recieve
I am assuming ragle, as well as wwjd believe like theIowaHawk does that these people are incable of actually striving for self sufficiency or have any others strings attached to go along with the welfare cashcow they recieve
Nope, he will be taught responsibility and accountability and understand that decisions have consequences good or bad, intended or not
You make a lot of assumptions. The only assertion I have made is that pulling benefits that babies need for survival as a punitive punishment to the mother is not only a bad idea, but a ridiculous one that will never happen. We don't really need to go any further, it's pretty clear we've reached the limits of your capabilities.
And you made a lot of assumptions by thinking that not cutting a baby factory a check just because of the ability of a vagina to become a clown car means that we should let the offspring that does squirt out die.
Doesnt surprise me you can't or won't answer the question
It would be up to you to explain how there won't be deaths if you take away the food source for so many children. I don't see a way... you tell me how you're gong to care for them? I assume you want the new way to be cheaper, correct? That's the whole point, so what do you propose? Magic is all I can think of.
There is so damned much waste in government spending that this isnt really about being cheaper in the short term. I am much more interested in breaking the pattern of entitlement and reliance on the government and giving a helping hand those that are actually trying to be productive.
as i mentioned in a previous post, crap happens. If a person has one and needs some assistance, fine.....but there needs to be some sort of support along the way to help this person become more self sufficient (ie: learning how to budget their finances, making smarter decisions with money, training for a better paying job, or applying and not turning down jobs because of fear that they will lose their handouts...i am sure there would be other areas that could be addressed as part of this as well)
If one chooses to not do that, and/or keeps having more children, they should not be able to keep the children. Of course, the adoption process may need revamped so that adopting domestically should be an easier choice instead of families choosing to go overseas to adopt, but that is another topic.
So, i will ask you again, why do you bleeding hearts think that continuing to throw money at clown car vaginas without expecting these people to do no more than lay on their back and keep popping out mouths is acceptable. thelIowaHawk seems to think attaching any sort of conditions to recieve money is a violation of rights. I dont expect you to actually answer and expect another deflection
Because I don't like dead babies or taking care of them. Bribing others to do it is best for all. Win for mom, win for baby, win for me. If I was poor, heartless or liked kids more I might gravitate to other solutions.
So you are saying that these people are unable or unwilling to earn their way, especially to feed these kids they are having, or to have any sort of stipulations placed on recieving their money that the outcome is the government hand off a check or these mothers will let their babies starve to death because they can't/won't go out and try to make their own way?
If thats the two choices then these folks should not be able to keep their children.
I don't want to deal with them, do you? Solve that and we now have another option I might support. Until then, a few grand a year is a bargain. We can all think of better solutions. The problem is most of those solutions have bigger draw backs. This solution is workable.
So the bleeding heart narrative is just to pay these people to go away and not bother you? i will remember that on this board when the pissing matches sprout up on this board and the likes of people like wwjd get on a soapbox and act like they care.
I'm not WWJD. He may care more. I mainly care that their problems remain their problems and not mine. What solution are you offerings? Sounds like you want to take over the parenting for them. Are you going to do this for free or am I going to be paying you too? Are you going to do anything to prevent the bad mother from getting knocked up again? The current system at least makes her live with the brat. Get real. What would solve the problem better than the current system?
While your solution makes the mother livewith the brat, it does not mean the mother will be an actual parent that will be involved with the childs life other than being a payday. Why do you assume that these problems wont be yours when this child grows up and decides to play the knockout game with you, break into your house to support a meth habit or any number of things because the person attached to the vagina wasnt an actual parent teaching their kids right from wrong or caring about what they were doing and who they were doing it with while they were growing up or making sure their schoolwork was done?
I have already thrown out plenty of suggestions including sterilization to those who cant/wont take care of their offspring they already have. Funny that those who seem to come off as the most caring on this board dont seem to want to answer my question posed earlier, instead of deflecting and trying to corner me (not directing this to you because you admitted you really dont care, as long as you are not inconvenienced)
What solution are you offering that would better parent that kid for less cost? The cost of forced state sterilization isn't one I want to pay. Your solution is too expensive for me. A more persuasive system like covering birth control with healthcare plans is much more to my liking.
Like i said in an earlier post, there is so much wasteful government spending going on nowadays that the short term savings/expense doesnt really play into this as far as i am concerned instead of breaking the mentality that Uncle same will always be there with an open wallet and being on welfare long term is acceptable. I know that breaks away from the lockstep thinking that its all about saving a dollar that usually accompanies those that want changes to welfare. I would think in the long run it would be more resourceful to stop/not reward the current mentality that seems to be prevelant today.
That's fine, but not at the cost of the government steralizing people. Your solution is worse than the problem. I fail to fathom a solution that isn't unconstitutional and immoral that improves on simply giving aid. Taking the kid away and forcing the adult to undergo sterilization has a huge cost in Liberty far beyond dollars. You would need to find less draconian methods. And I think when you move in that direction you will find its hard to improve on what we do now.
There might be some pro family changes we could make to the system like rewarding families with two parents with extra aid. But then you're going to have new objections. I don't think there is a lot of room for improvement once you consider all the competing interests. I think this is something we really do pretty well and should probably take some pride in how we manage the needy.
I agree, we should invest money in a more sustainable solution like training, education, and weaning these dependants off government aid. So long as we keep the benefits until the recipient is self sufficient or the children are safely in another home being taken care of.
The problem is that we don't have anywhere close to the resources needed to care for the kids in need now. If we flood the system with children who we are now going to take away from their dead beat parents because they don't complete their mandated training and become self sufficient, we have a serious problem. I think you underestimate how many will fail and how many millions of kids we're actually talking about here.
But let's say we do it and have hugely expanded facilities where kids are being taken care of, I assume we're cutting off food stamps for the dead beats who didn't take the opportunity given with the training we tried to give them? So now we have all of these people on the streets who will be desperate to survive and will most likely turn to crime, making our country exponentially more unstable and dangerous. Are you ok with this?
Whether you're a bleeding heart lib or play the role of a pragmatic realist for entertainment purposes, the point is that there are practical reasons to treat the parents and children the same in this scenario. Meaning that even if they "deserve it", we prefer to provide a life saving safety net anyway, because it actually benefits all of us.
You and I don't disagree nearly as much as you want to believe. I'm all for eliminating waste and promoting personal responsibility, I'm just not willing to live with the chaos that ensues when you start letting people fend for themselves or die, because in most cases, that doesn't turn into the feel good rags to riches story we hope it would.
This post is precisely my point, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a birth certificate is and its purpose while not understanding how child support works at the same time. Until you have a basic understanding of those your opinion on this will be confused.
Also, you appear to "know it happens" based entirely on one anecdotal story where you allegedly learned the information third-hand.
How you use a birth certificate is entirely relevant because those things are what birth certificates are used for, they have no bearing on child support...something you aren't understanding or are ignoring.
You didn't ask, but in my reasonable mind ability to parent and be considered "good" at it does not rely on financial ability. You seem to agree with that because you are willing to make exceptions for certain dads who don't provide financially...you just want to choose which ones. A standard conservative viewpoint: you know best who is good and who isn't.
This triples down on the absurdity.
Step one: slut shaming and degrading.
Step two: refuse to provide assistance to said slut mother (ostensibly based on saving money)
Step three: remove child from mother, place in state-funded foster care, exceedingly more expensive short and long term.
How brilliantly tasty.
How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?
One. But the light bulb has to want to change.
What's your plan? If we aren't going to provide the needed help to the slvt, and she is deemed unfit, then what?
How would the free market fix this?
Introducing eBaby - the online division of eBay that auctions babies taken away from their slvt mothers.
Took a page out of your playbook. Although you give that something extra when you dont answer questions with your personal attacks
Fair enough.
At the very least, i would love to see a volunteer or community service contingement for people to get their assistance (those that are able anyway). Not only would it bring about some sort of contribution, but it could be a good chance for some people to gain new skills, and a chance to meet new people that may become a mentor or open doors for that person. (I know putting a condition like that may still be too extreme for some in this thread tho)
Let's do it. I'll be there as a volunteer day one if we can get a pilot program approved. I ran a non-profit for the homeless and serving others is one of the most fulfilling experiences a human can have. We served people at the very bottom, showed them unconditional love, and very often they started volunteering on our side of the table because the joy was infectious. It became their first "job", made them feel valuable, and created a support group. We built them up, found them jobs, apartments, and help with substance and mental issues.
So many success stories... seems like there would be a lot of potential and worth trialing.
