-->
@TheUnderdog
Is that fear or just irresponsibility?
And where is your evidence that shows that all irresponsible parents are "deadbeats."
You have an over stylized view of the world, probably based upon hearsay.
How to end single motherhood
Posts
Total:
96
-->
@zedvictor4
And where is your evidence that shows that all irresponsible parents are "deadbeats."
If you abandon your parenting responsibilities to your kids, your a deadbeat.
None of this will ever happen, because it is sex. Child support keeps it halfway civilised, but sex is animal. Honestly, I agree with you, leaving your children means you're a deadbeat. But maybe try not being a 19 year old virgin.
-->
@badger
Child support I don't think is consistent because if your a deadbeat dad who abandons their parental responsibilities, society makes you pay child support. But people don't say this about people who lets say set their kids up for adoption, even though they did the same thing. I think sterilization is the only punishment that can consistently be applied to deadbeats as well as people who set their kids up for adoption.
I'm a 19 year old virgin and I love it. Everyone at 19 should be a virgin as it's so easy. You just don't fuck.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well, that is not the actual definition of a deadbeat.
Though an irresponsible person may be a deadbeat.
And a lot of successful people are also irresponsible parents.
Nothing is ever quite so clear cut as you imagine.
-->
@TheUnderdog
You're not getting it. You are a weird young man. Nobody's ever going to buy this, because it leaves out something in them that you lack. The whole world of biological organisms is a result of rampant sex.
-->
@Wylted
Is it really ditching my child, if I knocked up some hooker last week?
This is hilarious.
-->
@zedvictor4
What would be the term for people that ditch their wives or girlfriends the moment they get pregnant?
-->
@badger
So how do we punish people who ditch their girlfriends and wives when they are pregnant? Surely this must be punishable.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well, let's start with irresponsible, and append it with something like arsehole.
-->
@zedvictor4
Too vague. There needs to be a better term. How about, "smash and dash parents"?
-->
@TheUnderdog
Though..... Rape excluded....Sex is a two way transaction.
And unwanted pregnancy is therefore a twofold irresponsibility.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Smash and dash.
Sounds like a mashed potato advertising slogan.
-->
@zedvictor4
So there needs to be a punishment for males and anyone else that commits "smash and dash" to a pregnant girlfriend.
Smash and dash means you smash the girl and then you dash when you find out she is pregnant.
-->
@TheUnderdog
So how do we punish people who ditch their girlfriends and wives when they are pregnant? Surely this must be punishable.
Not a thing to be done about it. You'll only ever come across as a total weirdo. Child support.
-->
@badger
If we make people who abandon their their kids pay child support if they create a single parent household, then this same penalty should be prescribed to people who set their kids up for adoption as this is also ditching one's parental responsibilities. Yet we have to treat smash and dash parents the same way we treat people who set their kids up for adoption, as they both did the same thing; abandon their parental responsibilities. Child support seems a fair punishment for the former, but not the ladder. That's why I propose sterilization as it is the only way you can treat both groups of people the same while minimizing the chance they will repeat abandoning their parental responsibilities. It is a painless procedure that would reduce the abortion rate, unintended pregnency rate, the welfare use rate, and the poverty rate.
-->
@TheUnderdog
So how do we punish people who ditch their girlfriends and wives when they are pregnant? Surely this must be punishable.
They are punished by losing access to their child and that relationship.
-->
@Wylted
They are punished by losing access to their child and that relationship.
From the perspective of a deadbeat dad, that's a punishment? I thought they didn't care if their kid knew them; I thought they just wanted sex. But then they could get some other female pregnant and be a deadbeat dad yet again. They can still get the sex; they just need to get sterilized before they have sex again to prevent more moms from being single mothers.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I went through a bad break up with my kid's first mom. She ended up taking the kid and hiding his location, and everyone thought of me as a dead beat dad, Who did not want to see him.
About a year ago, I got into contact with him and we talk. Do you know I can't defend myself and even claim not to be a deadbeat dad. I can't tell him his mom kept him from me. If I want to try and make this relationship work, I can't be honest about his mother, because he grew up with her.
He'll drop contact with me, for bashing his mother and not taking responsibility for running off.
There are a ton of fathers who are grieving right now and want to be a part of their children's life. There are mothers experiencing the same thing.
Had somebody sterilized me for perceived wrong doing, I wouldn't have had my second son, who is the only reason I bother to even wake up in the morning. More important than me missing out on having my youngest son, is that the word would be deprived of him, and he is a net benefit to the world.
How about yo uh climb out of your ivory tower and be a less judgemental person. Even if you have an absent parent in your life, you only know one side of the story should give them the benefit of the doubt.
I am a dead beat dad, and I grieved for my son as if he had died. I did not know if I ever would see or hear from him again.
Suggesting the sterilization of dead beat fathers is ignorant. Judging them is ignorant. We also know that this sort of parental alienation, is more likely to happen to poor people who have less access to legal remedies.
How come every other thread started on this site is either by some ivory tower conservative who wants to piss on poor people or some elitist liberal who also wants to piss on poor people?
Jesjs christ, I hate the fact this is where a bunch of upper middle class kids gather to sharpen their ideals on how to further fuck poor people over. It's as if they are trying to finish the job their boomer grandparents started.
-->
@Wylted
You said a lot here. I'll try and break it down:
I went through a bad break up with my kid's first mom. She ended up taking the kid and hiding his location, and everyone thought of me as a dead beat dad, Who did not want to see him.
Were you divorced legally? Because if you were, whoever was most competent to have the kids would keep the kids. If neither you nor your first wife were abusers, you both should get to see your kid. I'd probably split it 50-50; you get to see your kid 2 weeks at a time, and then your ex wife gets to see the kid 2 weeks at a time. In the meantime, you parent your other kid. In my book, your only a deadbeat if you want to abandon your parental responsibilities, so you wouldn't be a deadbeat in my book and therefore you wouldn't get sterilized.
Had somebody sterilized me for perceived wrong doing, I wouldn't have had my second son, who is the only reason I bother to even wake up in the morning. More important than me missing out on having my youngest son, is that the world would be deprived of him, and he is a net benefit to the world.
I don't see you as a deadbeat parent because you want to see your kid and you seeing your first kid would help that kid have 2 parents. You should try and be a parent for both kids.
How about yo uh climb out of your ivory tower and be a less judgemental person
I think parents who want to avoid parental responsibilities while creating a kid deserve judgement and they will cause their kids to grow up without a male role model which will cause more crime, welfare dependency, and other stuff. You don't fit into this category since you want to see your son, but a court ruling that I don't agree with said that your ex wife gets the kids. Competent parents should split parenting responsibilities 50-50.
How come every other thread started on this site is either by some ivory tower conservative who wants to piss on poor people or some elitist liberal who also wants to piss on poor people?
I am not "pissing" on poor people; I am merely trying to hold the people who destroy other lives (like smash and dash parents) accountable. If anything, it's reducing the poverty that this nation is experiencing by restoring the family unit.
Screen-Shot-2018-11-13-at-10.34.52-AM.png (1382×1092) (whyy.org) states that the single motherhood rates are basically at all time highs for all races. This site also states that blacks and Hispanics are more likely to end up in single motherhood homes than whites. This partially explains why blacks and Hispanics are more likely to end up in prison and why they are more likely to end up in poverty than whites.
"Likely" is a tricky and often abused term used to described results delineated from statistics. It is important to note: no statistic can tell the future.
This isn't due to a racist police force that has as many minorities as a proportion of its population as the US population. The lurking variable that many of our left leaning friends and family members fail to realize is the single motherhood epidemic that effects blacks and Hispanics more than it does whites. Why this is the case is anyone's guess, but deadbeat African American dads not honoring their parental responsibilities is certainly not due to the perceived racism of society.
There's a wealth of problems concerning the so-called "black" family, one which includes the government offering welfare to fatherless families.
So this brings us to the question, how to reduce single motherhood so less people go to jail and less kids grow up in poverty.
(Some) children of two-parent homes go to jail and/or grow up in poverty.
My idea is to punish deadbeat parents for abandoning their parental responsibilities.
Delineate these responsibilities.
This consists of deadbeat dads getting a mandatory vastectomy and deadbeat moms getting their tubes tied.
Would you like to try that again?
The funds for this are paid for by the government and intended to be a deterrence to people to not abandon their parental responsibilities in order to provide their kids with hopefully a better life than they had. If you abandon your parenting responsibilities once, you easily could do it again.
And why do you or any other get to decide that the consequence for shirking "parental responsibility" is getting snipped?
This idea and deterrence reduces the foster kid count in addition to reducing the poverty and incarceration rate in the long term as anyone unwilling to get a vastectomy or their tubes tied would suck up the parenting responsibilities that they owe to their kids.
Why do they "owe" their kids? Wouldn't it be the other way around?
If they have to set their kids up for adoption, this is fine if they get their tubes tied or a vastectomy before they set their kids up for adoption or decide to be a deadbeat parent. Otherwise, you might make the same mistake again. This also helps reduce overpopulation.
First, overpopulation is a fictitious problem. Second, once again, who are you to decide?
This idea also allows very horny people to get sterilized, and then have all the sex they want without the fear of becoming a parent.
Wouldn't this result in the sterilization of those whose demographic have higher incidences of unplanned pregnancies--i.e. so-called "Black" and "Hispanic" people?
I fail to see the problem with this idea. It reduces long term poverty rates, incarceration rates, foster kid rates, it reduces overpopulation, it reduces the welfare state, and it allows horny players to get all the consensual sex they can get without fearing being a parent.
There are many problems with this idea. First and foremost, forced sterilization.
-->
@Athias
Overpopulation is a fictitious problem.
Simultaneously, this is true and also a fictitious statement.
Though one assumes that there is a limit to sustainability.
What do you think?
-->
@TheUnderdog
Of course the best way to end single motherhood.
Is an effective State contraception and abortion system.
Oh.....But then you've got to appease all those meddling GOD botherers.
F**k me, you just can't win.
-->
@TheUnderdog
a court ruling that I don't agree with said that your ex wife gets the kids.
Actually the court ruled I did have primary custody. There really is nothing the court can do about somebody just taking off with the kids though, especially if they hide their location
Your telling me how you would like this to ideally work. It's not pragmatic. It will harm poor people, whether it was intended tomorrow not, and laws that are harmful are equally evil, no.matter if the intent is intentional or not.
I am not "pissing" on poor people; I am merely trying to hold the people who destroy other lives (like smash and dash parents) accountable
Poor men can't afford lawyers to defend them from.accusations of being deadbeats. This process would likely go around courts to be practical.
On top of that it is unethical even if it worked like intended, though it certainly would not.
-->
@zedvictor4
Of course the best way to end single motherhood.
Is an effective State contraception and abortion system.
Everyone agrees that murdering babies is the best way to end single motherhood. Some of us just find that murdering babies is a bad thing.
Public shame is the most effective tool at discouraging or encouraging any behavior.
-->
@sadolite
It's also very effective at driving the outcasts to suicide.
Perhaps 'effective' doesn't equal 'superior' where ethics are concerned.
-->
@TheUnderdog
This consists of deadbeat dads getting a mandatory vastectomy and deadbeat moms getting their tubes tied. The funds for this are paid for by the government and intended to be a deterrence to people to not abandon their parental responsibilities in order to provide their kids with hopefully a better life than they had. If you abandon your parenting responsibilities once, you easily could do it again.I fail to see the problem with this idea.
Some problems - your proposal would use Big Government to punish people for being ignorant or poor, which comes with many moral concerns for people who do not think the government should be used in that way. Sterilizing people infringes on their bodily autonomy, and provides little empathy or room for growth and change. Someone might not have any education and struggle immensely. With some assistance and time, they might mature and see the error of their ways as well as create opportunities for themselves to be a better parent. We do not punish criminals who commit grave crimes against humanity with forced sterilization or lifelong sentences unless they murder someone, so why create this kind of psychological, physical and long-term punishment for someone being selfish? Abandonment is a terrible crime and comes with penalties, but sterilization seems cruel and unusual unless you want our government to start acting like China where they regulate the population "for the good of society." I am curious by what a "deadbeat mom" is, and abortion would have to be 100% legal across the board in every state under this proposal, or else you would just see back alley abortions left and right to try and avoid this penalty.
-->
@sadolite
Public shame is the most effective tool at discouraging or encouraging any behavior.
That is actually why creating a welfare state was previously a good ideal. Shame meant that only people who actually needed welfare got it. Unfortunately now many people are incapable of feeling shame
-->
@Wylted
You are correct. Single motherhood is taught to be a virtue and so is irresponsible behavior IE: the welfare state rewards it with a check every month. The more irresponsible the bigger the check.