If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(14 News Evansville)   Can't pay child support to your four children? That's no unprotected sex for you for the duration of your probation.... Unless you can come up with $100,000 in overdue support   (14news.com) divider line 46
    More: Interesting, child support, merits of the case, unprotected sex, Elyria, probation, Ohio Courts, Owensboro  
•       •       •

5298 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2014 at 7:05 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-05-15 07:54:07 AM  
7 votes:
My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.
2014-05-15 06:40:31 AM  
7 votes:
How about we also hold some of these deadbeat women who are allowing themselves to be knocked up by this loser responsible for their actions.  They are having babies they can't provide for...
2014-05-15 07:38:50 AM  
6 votes:

Cold_Sassy: PhiloeBedoe: How about we also hold some of these deadbeat women who are allowing themselves to be knocked up by this loser responsible for their actions.  They are having babies they can't provide for...

Yes "ladies" you are 50% responsible for this problem.


Just because he's supposed to be paying child support doesn't mean that women couldn't support the children on their own, it just means he's not doing his part
Does the article say the women aren't able to provide for the children? Again, not mobile friendly
2014-05-15 01:15:30 AM  
6 votes:

MrBallou: pgh9fan: Interesting. I wonder how the "Christian Conservatives" will take this. If he does get a woman pregnant would the court force an abortion on her?

Nah. They'd just put him in jail and leave the mother and child to fend for themselves. In a bootstrappy manner.


Well, it's not like he's doing much to support the kids he already has, so it likely wouldn't change anything for his new baby-mama whether he was in or out of jail.
2014-05-15 11:14:34 AM  
5 votes:

Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.


As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.
2014-05-15 08:25:13 AM  
5 votes:

WhoopAssWayne: I'm conservative, but here are some nutjob liberals in my family who are life-long social workers. Their opinions on this sort of matter are just jaw-dropping. They pretty much advocate court ordered sterilization for anyone who has  a) demonstrated failed parenting, b) lack of means to care for additional children, c) various other reasons (criminal record, drug use, generational welfare, etc) These self-identified hard core liberals turn into hard core fascists after dealing with reality for a few decades. I'll also say, they are good people trying to help others, but damn, are they harsh once they get a few in them.


Why does that shock you?  Is it because that's not how Fox news paints "liberals"?  I'm pretty darn liberal but I think forced sterilization should happen with failed parenting also.  There was a couple in PA that had a kid get sick and they tried to pray away the illness and the kid died, fast forward a few years and the next kid gets sick and dies because of them praying away the illness.  Those parents should be sterilized and put up for manslaughter.  I think they got 6 months probation for murdering 2 of their kids.
2014-05-15 01:09:38 AM  
5 votes:

pgh9fan: Interesting. I wonder how the "Christian Conservatives" will take this. If he does get a woman pregnant would the court force an abortion on her?


Nah. They'd just put him in jail and leave the mother and child to fend for themselves. In a bootstrappy manner.
2014-05-15 10:18:22 AM  
4 votes:
Deadbeat woman having kids she can't support, with men that don't want them:  Her body her choice.

Deadbeat man knocking up women then skipping out:  Send him to prison!

No double standard here, nope.

If we're going to restrict the reproductive rights of people who can't afford them, let's be gender blind and apply that standard across the board.
2014-05-15 07:38:22 AM  
4 votes:

abhorrent1: Bring back forced sterilization


Just license procreation.  If you have a child without a license, it becomes a ward of the state.  Or tossed of the side of the mountain like the Spartans did.
2014-05-15 09:49:01 AM  
3 votes:

Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.


Offer it to women also. $5000 is probably too much, but it's a good idea. The ethics of paying for anything like this even medical studies is really interesting. Offer too much and it's "How could a poor person turn that down? You're basically forcing them to do it." But if you offer a smaller amount you get "That's all they're worth to you? You're really taking advantage of these poor people."
2014-05-15 09:19:55 AM  
3 votes:

inglixthemad: hasty ambush: pgh9fan: Interesting. I wonder how the "Christian Conservatives" will take this. If he does get a woman pregnant would the court force an abortion on her?

Interesting, I wonder how reproductive rights "liberals" will take this or do those right only apply to women wanting to get an abortion?

Could we apply the same forced contraception methods on welfare moms?

Good for the goose, good for the gander. If mom isn't working / paying, I say it would be fair.


But then you would have a bunch of chicks and their pseudo male supporters out protesting about Senators getting up in their vagina and putting their laws on their bodies.

Chicks are real big on reproductive rights particularly when it comes to making others foot the bill/pay for the consequences of what they choose to do with their body.
2014-05-15 08:35:00 AM  
3 votes:
Totally in favor of having "parenting license" required to legally have a child.

/damn the consequences
2014-05-15 08:30:09 AM  
3 votes:
We often here more about the fathers with 8 kids by 6 moms, but the mothers rarely show up as to blame. In my line of work, we encounter the mothers much more frequently. It's not uncommon to see a mother with 5 kids by 4 or 5 dads. The big problem is that when I'm seeing these people it's because something has gone wrong and the state is stepping in to take control. So while the dad's may not be paying child support (and they rarely are), mom is doing very little to help provide for the children. Usually because having that many kids and no support leads to bad outcomes. Maybe they have a sister or mother who can help out for a little while, but mom often ends up homeless, in deplorable living conditions or an ability to discipline or properly care for this children. This shifts the burden to the state, and by extension, the taxpayers to support these children. In my opinion it's generally a failing on both parts, but even if one of those dad's was paying child support, it would do little to alleviate the problems.
2014-05-15 07:24:04 AM  
3 votes:

FirstNationalBastard: If he gets a vasectomy, can he start going bareback again without paying?


Vasectomies can be made to be reversible, so I would allow it if I were the judge.
I would also hold the medical practitioner liable if it fails. But that's what insurance is for.  Probably one of the cheaper malpractice suits.
He could also opt for a complete castration and then do whatever he wants.  Doesn't sound like he's much of a man, anyways.
2014-05-15 05:16:14 PM  
2 votes:

inglixthemad: shortymac: The problem is thanks to the christian conservative movement, getting government resources to pay for BC and abortions is political hot potato.

When you are living paycheck to paycheck, paying $50+ a month for BC pills or $500 for an early-term abortions is extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Hell, there are states in the US that have exactly 1 abortion clinic for the whole state! (North Dakota and Mississippi)

Ever wonder why other first world nations DON'T have the crime problem we have? Yeah, we don't have a bunch of kids nobody wants running around.

$50? My old neighbor's kid pays less than $10 (as of last June) according her at Planned Parenthood. My kids, because they had an education, paid ~$30-60 with insurance, but that's not at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood may be considered evil by fundies, but I consider them a valuable resource for men and women. Heck, my Polish friend got her non-hormonal IUD for cheap there because she fell below a certain income level.

I do agree fundies ruin shiat. Then again, a lot of guys don't give a fark because it isn't 'good for the goose, good for the gander' in family court. So fundies can attract them by saying they'll removed female privilege. This goes for double in issues involving child custody.


Your friends probably all have cars and you probably don't live in the middle of bumfark rural no-where where the local pharmacist refuses to stock Plan B because republican Jesus.

The problem is the majority of impoverished people live in rural areas where access to public transit is non-existent, if your crappy car goes you're screwed. Don't forget fundies guilt-tripping the local community as well.

I'd like to think that the fundy movement is in it's deaththroes, but as long as older boomers are around screwing things up I doubt it'll be soon.
2014-05-15 02:54:20 PM  
2 votes:

inglixthemad: Worst of all it's based on a 19th, or early 20th century, view of biology and female rights.


Wrong.  It's based on the fact that we now have the technology to prove paternity and the will to collect child support.  This is a very recent phenomenon.  It wasn't until the 1980s when courts started to get serious about collecting child support payments.  Prior to that the risk of pregnancy fell almost exclusively on women.  A few well-to-do men may have paid hush money support, but mostly women suffered the costs an unwanted pregnancy while men got off scot free.

The widespread notion that sex is risky for men is brand new.  When I was young men joked about not knowing how many children they may have fathered.
2014-05-15 10:03:58 AM  
2 votes:
I love watching the logic acrobatics in threads like these. "This idiot keeps knocking up women. Let's reprimand the women!"
2014-05-15 09:05:14 AM  
2 votes:
So in typical Fark fashion, it's the whore's fauit and she should be sterilized. Got it.
2014-05-15 08:54:55 AM  
2 votes:
If you owe $100,000 for child support, it sounds like someone is getting alimony cloaked as child support.
2014-05-15 08:45:53 AM  
2 votes:
This is why we need to invent some implantable male birth control that lasts at least 3 months.
2014-05-15 08:40:10 AM  
2 votes:

WhoopAssWayne: I'm conservative, but here are some nutjob liberals in my family who are life-long social workers. Their opinions on this sort of matter are just jaw-dropping. They pretty much advocate court ordered sterilization for anyone who has  a) demonstrated failed parenting, b) lack of means to care for additional children, c) various other reasons (criminal record, drug use, generational welfare, etc) These self-identified hard core liberals turn into hard core fascists after dealing with reality for a few decades. I'll also say, they are good people trying to help others, but damn, are they harsh once they get a few in them.


Like all battlefields, the action changes whatever preconcieved notions you once had.

2nd support order, off they come.
2014-05-15 07:45:14 AM  
2 votes:
I'm conservative, but here are some nutjob liberals in my family who are life-long social workers. Their opinions on this sort of matter are just jaw-dropping. They pretty much advocate court ordered sterilization for anyone who has  a) demonstrated failed parenting, b) lack of means to care for additional children, c) various other reasons (criminal record, drug use, generational welfare, etc) These self-identified hard core liberals turn into hard core fascists after dealing with reality for a few decades. I'll also say, they are good people trying to help others, but damn, are they harsh once they get a few in them.
2014-05-15 02:31:49 AM  
2 votes:
Child support is silly as the bare necessities of food, shelter, education, and healthcare should be free to all children.

It's time to move into a post currency economy. Basing everything on money ...
2014-05-15 04:55:14 PM  
1 votes:

IRQ12: JeffreyScott: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.

That's the really messed up thing about the planned parenthood hate.  They offer birth control basically free for people without the means to pay for it.  The places that need that the most are legislating them away.


It's because of the christian dominionist movement mixed with the racists elements of the conservative movement and created a bizarre hydra of an anti-BC and abortion movement.

See, in their warped minds "welfare queens" (brown people) wouldn't use these services anyway because they want more welfare money, only young white college co-eds need BC and abortions in their minds. This terrifies them because they fear white people will lose their majority status, so they want to ban these things thinking the co-eds will give up said babies for adoption.

Don't believe me? Pat Buchanan wrote a book about it called "Death of the West".
2014-05-15 03:39:43 PM  
1 votes:

JeffreyScott: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

As someone who interacts with this segment of society, I think that offering men cash for a vasectomy is probably as cost effective as offering the woman and extra $100 a month in benefits if she agrees to take long term birth control (shot, Norplant, etc...), which would be provided free of charge, after she has her first child for which she requires public assistance.  It wouldn't matter if the woman was married or not.

It has many benefits over the vasectomy suggestion:

(1) it is not invasive so more people would participate
(2) it targets women who already have children they cannot support
(3) providing an extra $100 a month would benefit her existing children
(4) the fewer children the woman has the more likely she is to stay in school or maintain employment
(5) the fewer children the woman has the more time she has to nurture her existing children
(6) $1200/year is dirt cheap compared to paying for a kid
(7) because it is not permanent and the woman could exit the program at any time, it stands a greater chance of passing a constitutional challenge in court.

This wouldn't stop women who are receiving assistance from having children, but it would likely reduce the number of children many of them have during their lifetime.


That's the really messed up thing about the planned parenthood hate.  They offer birth control basically free for people without the means to pay for it.  The places that need that the most are legislating them away.
2014-05-15 01:34:15 PM  
1 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-05-15 12:30:57 PM  
1 votes:
Good luck enforcing that.
2014-05-15 12:02:19 PM  
1 votes:

shortymac: The problem is thanks to the christian conservative movement, getting government resources to pay for BC and abortions is political hot potato.

When you are living paycheck to paycheck, paying $50+ a month for BC pills or $500 for an early-term abortions is extremely difficult and nearly impossible. Hell, there are states in the US that have exactly 1 abortion clinic for the whole state! (North Dakota and Mississippi)

Ever wonder why other first world nations DON'T have the crime problem we have? Yeah, we don't have a bunch of kids nobody wants running around.


$50? My old neighbor's kid pays less than $10 (as of last June) according her at Planned Parenthood. My kids, because they had an education, paid ~$30-60 with insurance, but that's not at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood may be considered evil by fundies, but I consider them a valuable resource for men and women. Heck, my Polish friend got her non-hormonal IUD for cheap there because she fell below a certain income level.

I do agree fundies ruin shiat. Then again, a lot of guys don't give a fark because it isn't 'good for the goose, good for the gander' in family court. So fundies can attract them by saying they'll removed female privilege. This goes for double in issues involving child custody.
2014-05-15 11:44:27 AM  
1 votes:

rolladuck: Creoena: And how exactly will they enforce this?

TFA says the order was that he couldn't have more children.  Since legally in Ohio, an unmarried man is only a father if a woman claims him to be a father, he can still knock someone up and get her to not declare a father, or only sleep with married women (married men are presumed to be the father if their wife has a baby unless she and another man both agree otherwise.)

The ruling also means that if he breaks the condom, the court is basically requiring him to seek morning-after treatment.  It also means that the court has pre-emptively determined that no woman is allowed to procreate with him.  I wonder how that would be accepted by the women's reproductive rights lobby.  Don't they have the right to knowingly make bad, even devastating decisions?


I think it is an overstep - what might work is for dead-beat parents (either gender) of the can't-help-my-reproducing-self type to carry mandatory insurance.....if you can't afford the ones you have and are in arrears, you will take out a paternity/maternity insurance policy that will accrue value - unplanned babby? increased premiums based on pay-out of support funds - no unplanned babby? increased value to help you out of the debt you are in for non-support.

might help with family court arguments about how that biatch isn't getting any money to buy shiat for herself because, hey? I bought a box of diapers just last christmas or, inversely, how he got her pregnant by some evil magic and he isn't seeing the babby until he writes a check equal to his quarterly salary.
2014-05-15 11:44:10 AM  
1 votes:

teenage mutant ninja rapist: Dirty J1: For a court to have to order this lowlife deadbeat not to have any more kids is just sad. Not sure how the guy in question feels about it but I surely hope having more kids wasnt on his to do list to begin with. The fact that he's paying child support, or supposed to be anyway, for his existing kids just shows he's not in the picture to raise them anyway so apparently he doesn't want them in the first place. Here's an easy way to get through these typed of issues: poor? Dont have kids. Not until you become not poor. Simple. Rather than wasting your early years raising kids you could be getting educated, trained, experienced, and ultimately become successful in a field that will pay you very well. Then maybe have kids. That's what smart people do.

Ya because no poor people ever loved their kids or raised them well. Because poverty makes you a bad person.

Because nobody with the means to care for their kids has ever been a destructive person towards them.

There is a difference between being poor and being a lousy parent.


This is true, but to have kids it's really ideal to want them to begin with, and to be financially secure enough to raise them, or pay the child support at least. I grew up poor myself with a deadbeat dad whom I've never met. He had issues with paying child support as well. I know my mom loved me and all but growing up was rough. Being in that situation I've consciously made the decision to hold off on having kids until I'm financially secure. And of course i would never be a deadbeat cock suck like my father. And so far without kids, I've been able to devote literally all my time into studying and schooling and job training. I'm about to graduate college soon as well. An my wife, since she feels the same and doesn't have to raise kids, is in a stable career herself while I make my share and work my way up to a well paying career myself. Then she will be able to quit and spen time raising a child while i work and we can provide a decent life for our potential children. I have no idea why people these days are in such a hurry to have children.
2014-05-15 11:24:00 AM  
1 votes:

Arcturus72: Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.

In my last job, I was one of 2 white guys on the job while all the others were black or hispanic... Almost all of them who were married also had a girlfriend on the side... This subject came up more than once. Since I had my vasectomy since '98, I was talking to them about it... Almost without fail, all of them were convinced that "You get cut, your shiat don't work no more"... I told them they should say that around Mrs Arcturus for her answer on that one, but still, no takers...

I even told them, since several of them were on the hook for child support, "If you get it done, no more worries about child support with that girlfriend on the side"... Nope, no takers...

The place was very interesting to work at sometimes... One guy's girlfriend was driving out at the same time his wife was driving in, with both of them bringing him lunch... And yes, I'm glad I no longer work there...

Oh, and for a slightly better link, with photos:  http://chronicle.northcoastnow.com/2014/05/13/appeals-court%E2%80%88h e -cant-children-pays-child-support/


I worked with a guy that had 2-3 girlfriends at any given time, none of which he lived with. The odd thing was that they knew he was a 'serial cheater' but still went to bed with him. He wasn't an idiot though, he had his two kids and got cut.

One thing, he never told the women he was cut, ever. I never understood why, until he had a couple of fake pregnancy scares. Well, the pregnancies may, or may not, have been fake. He wasn't the guy on the hook for child support if they were real. He explained his not telling them this way: (paraphrased a bit) 'Let women think you can give them a baby and they're happy. They know you're fixed and their desire to bed you drops quickly. I don't have to understand it - I just call it biology and stopped trying to figure it out.'
2014-05-15 10:59:56 AM  
1 votes:
For a court to have to order this lowlife deadbeat not to have any more kids is just sad. Not sure how the guy in question feels about it but I surely hope having more kids wasnt on his to do list to begin with. The fact that he's paying child support, or supposed to be anyway, for his existing kids just shows he's not in the picture to raise them anyway so apparently he doesn't want them in the first place. Here's an easy way to get through these typed of issues: poor? Dont have kids. Not until you become not poor. Simple. Rather than wasting your early years raising kids you could be getting educated, trained, experienced, and ultimately become successful in a field that will pay you very well. Then maybe have kids. That's what smart people do.
2014-05-15 10:55:54 AM  
1 votes:

PhiloeBedoe: How about we also hold some of these deadbeat women who are allowing themselves to be knocked up by this loser responsible for their actions.  They are having babies they can't provide for...


How about we fund initiatives to give our free BC, abortions, and serialization surgeries on anyone who wants them. A lot of people in poverty do not have any access to free/reduced BC services offered by places like Planned Parenthood.
hej
2014-05-15 10:29:44 AM  
1 votes:

Pucca: So in typical Fark fashion, it's the whore's fauit and she should be sterilized. Got it.


The whore is a "he" in this case.
2014-05-15 10:26:40 AM  
1 votes:

Pucca: So in typical Fark fashion, it's the whore's fauit and she should be sterilized. Got it.


Nah, it's good for the goose, good for the gander philosophy. She helped spawn a brat she can't support.

More than that, if they aren't working, they're expecting a man to support them along with the child. That would be proof they're idiots that should be restricted from further spawning.

I keep being told that child support exists 'because it takes two to make a baby.' Using that logic the women who can't support themselves, and provide for their children 50%, are deadbeat moms.

Equality is a biatch.
2014-05-15 08:56:12 AM  
1 votes:

Fafai: I alone am best: PhiloeBedoe: How about we also hold some of these deadbeat women who are allowing themselves to be knocked up by this loser responsible for their actions.  They are having babies they can't provide for...

I dont understand why he has to pay for them at all. The woman had the choice not to have them.

"It's biology."

/court-ordered biology


Worst of all it's based on a 19th, or early 20th century, view of biology and female rights.

When child support came into being it was because the poor, feckless, helpless wimmin folk were basically chattel. They could never be expected to obtain an education or gainful employment to raise children. Prior to this, children had gone to the person with resources (usually the man) but at this point (with factory jobs becoming more common) women were staying home while the men wen to the factories. Rather than expect the man to pay for child care (day care didn't exist in the same sense, obviously) they (the patriarchy) declared mothers the natural parent and started giving them custody. Since those useless wimmins couldn't get real work, men were ordered to pay money for their care. Go back and look up Staunton in 1808 for the first of a series of decisions affirming this ideal.

Women were effectively hindered (to put it politely) in education and employment. The chances of them being able to effectively provide for their own children was remote. The same patriarchy that ruled them money, also ruled they stay at home, by fiat in both cases. Child support had nothing to do with the best interest of the child, it was in the best interest in the patriarchy to keep women at home and out of the workplace.

The effects linger to this day with women being awarded primary (or sole) custody even though the 'law' says otherwise.

Biology used to be a valid excuse. The 'safest' (not that it's 100% safe, just safer) way for a women to get a fetus out of her body was birth. Abortifacents were hit or miss, and quite often dangerous. Abortions themselves were equally dangerous, especially in a society that still didn't understand infections properly. Nowadays? Abortion is safe and legal. Birth control is cheap, effective, and unobtrusive to the experience (especially for women) in the 21st century. Anyone using the biology argument is grasping at straws because there is nothing making a women in the first world, from menarche to menopause, carry a baby against her will. Pregnancy is a choice for women, in a first world country, nothing less.
2014-05-15 08:51:42 AM  
1 votes:

Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.


...make it 10 grand and the surgery is free, and you'd have men lined up down the street.
2014-05-15 08:38:07 AM  
1 votes:

Cold_Sassy: My brother says that people like this should be offered $5,000.00 to undergo a free vasectomy.  He thinks that most of this sort would jump on it and it'd be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers in the long run.


How about $500? I think this sounds great, offer deadbeats and morons money if they get a vasectomy. Of course, you'd need to sell it to both sides. For the conservatives, you could spin it as reducing the number of people pumping out babies to mooch of taxpayer dollars. For liberals, spin it as reducing poverty. Yeah, I think this has potential.
2014-05-15 08:04:35 AM  
1 votes:

PhiloeBedoe: How about we also hold some of these deadbeat women who are allowing themselves to be knocked up by this loser responsible for their actions.  They are having babies they can't provide for...


I dont understand why he has to pay for them at all. The woman had the choice not to have them.
2014-05-15 07:51:15 AM  
1 votes:

BizarreMan: Ordering him to have no more children is over the line of acceptable sentences.

Are you kidding?  This kind of shiat is way overdue.  I'm just shocked they actually went there instead of cowering in fear of the fundies running amok in this country.
2014-05-15 07:33:42 AM  
1 votes:

PhiloeBedoe: How about we also hold some of these deadbeat women who are allowing themselves to be knocked up by this loser responsible for their actions.  They are having babies they can't provide for...


I had to take a friend to the "Family Planning Clinic" and I think I was the only male in the waiting room.

In the two hours I sat there I would say 90% of the women were having this conversation"That bastard got me pregnant".

You never hear a woman say "Yeah, I was horny and let the guy raw dog me, I am such an idiot".
2014-05-15 07:31:56 AM  
1 votes:

PhiloeBedoe: How about we also hold some of these deadbeat women who are allowing themselves to be knocked up by this loser responsible for their actions.  They are having babies they can't provide for...


Yes "ladies" you are 50% responsible for this problem.
2014-05-15 07:28:55 AM  
1 votes:
The appeals court cleverly stepped around this issue.

Though I'm one of the ones who believes that "It would be nice if they could force soandso to stop having kids", it's not generally acceptable in the US, and not in cases for financial ability.

However if it is found *legally* acceptable, can we also apply that order to Octomom until she repays the state for all of the money we've spent on her and her crotchfruit?  I'm sure she'll pop out some more kids when she gets desperate for more attention.
2014-05-15 07:15:48 AM  
1 votes:
And how exactly will they enforce this?
2014-05-15 02:42:47 AM  
1 votes:
The better way to punish guys who father too many kids or women who carry too many babies to term is to force them to work in education.

They can take care of their kids or take care of everyone's kids.
2014-05-15 12:53:37 AM  
1 votes:
Interesting. I wonder how the "Christian Conservatives" will take this. If he does get a woman pregnant would the court force an abortion on her?
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report