Women and children first: Why single motherhood is on the rise

[devia]

Andrew.

Would you rather a couple of meth addicts breed and raise a child or a single mother with means?

I'm not saying it's the best situation but it's by far the lesser evil.

There was a movie out a couple of years ago, about a couple of dimwits who time travel to the future and are the smartest people on earth. A really stupid movie but spot on, when stupid people breed they breed stupid people.

Where I live the highest breeding rate is among natives, who also have a huge issues with FAS. Smart people need to have more babies.

[Mr. X]

I have no problem with a women who can afford a great home and nanny's etc having a child, at least that's another child growing up with decent genes and a home that can provide for them. I have a huge problem with drop them out to collect the check moma's . How any welfare moma could consider herself in anyway like "Murphy Brown"  is beyond me.

Great points.

Assuming that's serious, I disagree. Devia's point, like other women's, ignores fatherhood completely to focus on economics. Do you believe that?

If a woman can afford to take care of a kid she wants then its her business. I would not deny a father the right to adopt or surrogate and do the same thing. Yes I think two parents help but when its rich people, if she can afford it, its her business.

Its the part where some women cannot afford it and have kids anyway. My secretary's sister is literally a baby factory. This woman has a kid with almost everyone she sleeps with and she now has 4 children all from different dads. And one guy committed suicide leaving her money. She seems to make her money from each divorce. Two of the kids have started boning each other. Its a trainwreck. But the fact is we cannot force her to stop, force her to stay married, force her to do anything. She's just sad.

[Andrew Usher]

Assuming that's serious, I disagree. Devia's point, like other women's, ignores fatherhood completely to focus on economics. Do you believe that?

If a woman can afford to take care of a kid she wants then its her business. I would not deny a father the right to adopt or surrogate and do the same thing. Yes I think two parents help but when its rich people, if she can afford it, its her business.

And this is another place I disagree with libertarian ideas. We must oppose intentional single motherhood, and every masculist I've seen outside of this board does. If you think about it, children are everyone's business as they don't remain their parents' 'property' forever.

Its the part where some women cannot afford it and have kids anyway. My secretary's sister is literally a baby factory. This woman has a kid with almost everyone she sleeps with and she now has 4 children all from different dads. And one guy committed suicide leaving her money. She seems to make her money from each divorce. Two of the kids have started boning each other. Its a trainwreck. But the fact is we cannot force her to stop, force her to stay married, force her to do anything. She's just sad.

If she's 'making money with every divorce', then perhaps she can afford it and that's part of the problem. No we can't force her, that's freedom.

[devia]

Andrew,

Why didn't you answer my question?

[The Gonzman]

And this is another place I disagree with libertarian ideas. We must oppose intentional single motherhood, and every masculist I've seen outside of this board does. If you think about it, children are everyone's business as they don't remain their parents' 'property' forever.

And what exactly is your proposal?  Take the kids away and assert a property right of the state?  Jail her?  Shoot her?  Forced abortion?  Another unenforceable "law?"

There was someone who posited that one should first declare children to be the most precious resource of the state, and then find a way to justify, every time they could, enacting a new law for the sake of the children, because people would tolerate almost any loss of liberty for that reason.  He was the chancellor of Germany through most the 30's.

And you sound just like him.

If she's 'making money with every divorce', then perhaps she can afford it and that's part of the problem. No we can't force her, that's freedom.

SOMEONE HAS to support those kids, WE CAN'T just let them suffer, etc. etc. etc.

All positions taken by one Andrew Usher.  But now that it goes after a woman, it's okay.

A hypocritical misogynist.

[The Gonzman]

Andrew,

Why didn't you answer my question?

Because he CAN'T without just going into another leftist diatribe of unsupportable assertions.

[Mr. X]

Assuming that's serious, I disagree. Devia's point, like other women's, ignores fatherhood completely to focus on economics. Do you believe that?

If a woman can afford to take care of a kid she wants then its her business. I would not deny a father the right to adopt or surrogate and do the same thing. Yes I think two parents help but when its rich people, if she can afford it, its her business.

And this is another place I disagree with libertarian ideas. We must oppose intentional single motherhood, and every masculist I've seen outside of this board does. If you think about it, children are everyone's business as they don't remain their parents' 'property' forever.

Ironically its a liberal ideal. Its just liberals forgot what liberalism is. Its the support of liberty. It also means I should not be compelled to support this woman and her kids. One of the reasons this kind of practice is on the rise is because these women know there is a safety net. We are all made to pay for these kids under a state forced system. So why the hell not pop out a kid. Its not like she has to pay for it with people like you advocating I and others "save the children".

The system you advocate helps create this circumstance buy forcing all of us to pay for her mistake. In the old days women DIDN'T do this because 1. to do so would get you shamed and 2. there was no safety net so no one would support you if you had the kid.

[Andrew Usher]

Ironically its a liberal ideal. Its just liberals forgot what liberalism is. Its the support of liberty.

Liberty includes everybody, not just those you find deserving.

It also means I should not be compelled to support this woman and her kids. One of the reasons this kind of practice is on the rise is because these women know there is a safety net. We are all made to pay for these kids under a state forced system. So why the hell not pop out a kid.

Well, gee - for the usual reasons women might not have children? There are already many ways we pay for other people's kids and my system would at least be no worse.

Its not like she has to pay for it with people like you advocating I and others "save the children".

On the contrary, I advocate that women bear more responsibility than they do now.

The system you advocate helps create this circumstance buy forcing all of us to pay for her mistake.

My ideal system, as already mentioned, attempts to avoid this by limiting the child benefit and abolishing child support as we know it. It is better by your standard, I think, than anything that exists today.

[The Gonzman]

Liberty includes everybody, not just those you find deserving.

Like, say, BlacksSingle Mothers?

Here's the telling point - if single mothers and single fathers are treated differently, it is sexist.

Well, gee - for the usual reasons women might not have children? There are already many ways we pay for other people's kids and my system would at least be no worse.

And also be no improvement.

On the contrary, I advocate that women bear more responsibility than they do now.

Nice claim.  A few details on your "Plan" would be nice to make a judgment, but what the hell - I guess if you advance no specifics, just "Hopey Changitude" you can just dismiss any questioning of your meaningless gibberish as "Personal Attack."

My ideal system, as already mentioned, attempts to avoid this by limiting the child benefit and abolishing child support as we know it. It is better by your standard, I think, than anything that exists today.

It's still a statist system that infringes on liberty.  The changes you propose are merely cosmetic ones, and instead of being socialist, are fascist.  In the end, children are property of the state and parents who raise them merely caretakers.

[Mr. X]

Ironically its a liberal ideal. Its just liberals forgot what liberalism is. Its the support of liberty.

Liberty includes everybody, not just those you find deserving.

When did I say it was only for those who I find deserving?

Well, gee - for the usual reasons women might not have children? There are already many ways we pay for other people's kids and my system would at least be no worse.

If a woman knows there is no one to support her children she is less likely to produce children. If she know she can actually profit from popping out babies then there's an inducement to create children.

On the contrary, I advocate that women bear more responsibility than they do now.

Great then we are in agreement. And one way to do that is not force the both of us to pay for her bad choices.

My ideal system, as already mentioned, attempts to avoid this by limiting the child benefit and abolishing child support as we know it. It is better by your standard, I think, than anything that exists today.

You did not read what I wrote. In fact you complain about me wanting to do EXACTLY this and leaving children high and dry then you say I don't support this. I don't mind VOLUNTARY child support, just not compelled child support. You're not reading what others are writing or you responded to the wrong reply.

[Andrew Usher]

Liberty includes everybody, not just those you find deserving.

When did I say it was only for those who I find deserving?

Evidently we have different definitions of 'liberty'. To me it (and the synonymous 'freedom') includes everything, while you use the artificial libertarian definition. By my definition, you do so limit it.

Well, gee - for the usual reasons women might not have children? There are already many ways we pay for other people's kids and my system would at least be no worse.

If a woman knows there is no one to support her children she is less likely to produce children. If she know she can actually profit from popping out babies then there's an inducement to create children.

Precisely.

On the contrary, I advocate that women bear more responsibility than they do now.

Great then we are in agreement. And one way to do that is not force the both of us to pay for her bad choices.

There's no way to avoid paying for them somehow. And actually, as a child born to a poor mother costs less than a child born to a rich mother, the economy pays less in spite of welfare!

My ideal system, as already mentioned, attempts to avoid this by limiting the child benefit and abolishing child support as we know it. It is better by your standard, I think, than anything that exists today.

You did not read what I wrote. In fact you complain about me wanting to do EXACTLY this and leaving children high and dry then you say I don't support this. I don't mind VOLUNTARY child support, just not compelled child support. You're not reading what others are writing or you responded to the wrong reply.

[/quote]

This is part of my guaranteed-income plan ( http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income ), which you oppose; because of the basic income, children would not be 'left high and dry'. So we do not agree.

[neoteny]

Liberty includes everybody, not just those you find deserving.

When did I say it was only for those who I find deserving?

Evidently we have different definitions of 'liberty'. To me it (and the synonymous 'freedom') includes everything, while you use the artificial libertarian definition. By my definition, you do so limit it.

AU (again) fails to include either his definition of 'liberty' and 'freedom' or Mr. X.'s version as he perceives it; again, he pays off his readers with some convoluted bullshit about 'everything' and 'artificial'.

[Mr. X]

Evidently we have different definitions of 'liberty'. To me it (and the synonymous 'freedom') includes everything, while you use the artificial libertarian definition. By my definition, you do so limit it.

Again how am I limiting when I advocate the freedom from being forced to pay for someone's choices. What artificial libertarian definition. I think someon told you a whole lot of absurd crap about libertarians. Libertarians are true liberals, classic liberals, the maximization of liberty through non-coercive means.

There's no way to avoid paying for them somehow. And actually, as a child born to a poor mother costs less than a child born to a rich mother, the economy pays less in spite of welfare!

Yes there is a way to avoid it. Don't pay it. I am not my brothers keeper nor am I obligated to support someone else.

This is part of my guaranteed-income plan ( http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:basic-income ), which you oppose; because of the basic income, children would not be 'left high and dry'. So we do not agree.

If your plan involves forced payment by me and obligating me against my will to support others then YES I oppose your plan. YOU are the one with the incomplete liberty since YOU wish to rob others of true liberty and compel them against their will to pay for peoples entitlements. You really need to read up on the definition of liberty. Liberty is NOT putting a gun to others' heads and demanding they pay for stuff and giving others the "freedom" to pop out babies at everyone else's expense. Want a baby? You pay for it.

BTW Gonzo, do NOT read his link. You will vommit.

[The Gonzman]

AU (again) fails to include either his definition of 'liberty' and 'freedom' or Mr. X.'s version as he perceives it; again, he pays off his readers with some convoluted bullshit about 'everything' and 'artificial'.

You are surprised?  It's a classic liberal debate tactic; don't give specifics.  That way your specifics can never be criticized or analyzed by a thinking person, and you get to claim victim status.

[Cordell Walker]

I dont know about the rest of the states, but in mine, you would have to be a feces eating retard to have a kid specifically for the welfare benifits.
I dont think that happens all that much to be honest
Also, many of the people that get one kind of benifit or another, also work(sometimes for cash under the table)