Maybe it is the dads that should be sterilised!
February 17th, 2013 at 9:00 am by David FarrarJoanne Carroll at NZ Herald reports:
One rogue 19-year-old is a liable father to 13 kids to different mums.
A source has confirmed the man is named on the birth certificates of 13 children, and is liable to pay child support for them.
Figures released by the Inland Revenue Department show 943 teenage fathers were liable to pay child support at the end of last year. Some were just 15 years old, and already liable for two children.
A study for Inland Revenue estimates the “average” cost of raising a child to the age of 18 as $250,000. It does not count stay-at-home parents’ loss of incomes or childcare costs. The weekly cost for a low-income parent raising a child is $150 – or $140,000 by the time the child reaches 18.
Sadly he knows that he won’t have to pay for any of them, as I predict he is almost inevitably not working himself. Even if he is, you pay the same for 13 kids as you do for one kid, in terms of child support.
What would be karma is forcing him to live in a home with all the mothers and kids and spend 40+ hours a day changing nappies, feeding etc.
Related posts:
- Let’s not forget the deadbeat dads
- Kids on the DPB
- Hide on “child poverty”
- Labour desperate for every last dollar of tax
February 17th, 2013 at 9:23 am
It might not be such good karma for the kids, it would be hard to trust him showing any responsibility, that has obviously been lacking in his life so far.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 9:23 am
How many would want him around. He would be into screwing them all in turn each day.
Vote:Anyhow how did he manage to fit up 13 different girls. Were they all dumb and fucking stupid.
They may have named him but has any DNA testing been done. Might be just another scam.
February 17th, 2013 at 9:30 am
Karma would be chopping his dick off.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 9:50 am
One of the more frightening scenarios of this would be….
This guy gets is “hook ups” locally. Although these girls may not know each other, chances are their kids will end up at the same school. Play and even grow up together. And sadly, have babies together.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 10:03 am
Why shouldn’t he do this. After all our oh so clever politicians have removed virtually all consequences for him and created incentives for the mothers. He/they are only responding to the messages sent from a society that continues to give power to political cowards.
Meanwhile my freedom is further curtailed as I am forced to pay for this cowardice.
February 17th, 2013 at 10:06 am
Democracy fails when we vote ourselves more rights than responsibilities.
February 17th, 2013 at 10:14 am
How revolting! I’m sure that some of these girls know of each other what with FB and twitter. Were they not at least concerned that they would catch something off this guy, other than a meal ticket of course? And how depressing that my baby boy is part of a generation of kids where many will have been fathered in circumstamces like this and not have stable, loving homes. Home schooling sounds more and more appealing by the day…..
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 10:23 am
Dads have no say over the birth of a child. The female makes that decision and the rest of us pay for it, to support her lifestyle choice. When fathers can demand an abortion or adoption, then we can have this discussion.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 10:29 am
Yes they do.
Vote:His choice to have sex.
His choice to not use condom and spermicide.
February 17th, 2013 at 10:30 am
“…He/they[politicians] are only responding to the messages sent from a society that continues to give power to political cowards…”
Top stuff radvad.
The absolutly careless in society like these boys and girls, should not be classified as ‘disadvantaged’.
It’s all their own fault, and can’t be blamed on others as there is virtually no ‘wealth disparity’ between 16ylds.
Nor have they been ‘indoctrinated’ into having sex by religious parents.
It’s not ‘workplace bullying’ as they have no jobs.
It’s not ‘racism’ as virtually no girls have babies after being raped.
It’s not ‘sexism’, as again they haven’t said they were raped.
Etc.
We can rightfully blame these kids for – their lot in life!
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 10:31 am
I agree with radvad.
Vote:Welfare means that it’s all incentives for the mother, and no consequences for the father. Create an environment and people will exploit it to the utmost. It’s that simple. So simple that our moronic politicians don’t understand it.
February 17th, 2013 at 10:33 am
“……Yes they do.
His choice to have sex.
His choice to not use condom and spermicide….”
Half these girls want the DPB and will lie that they are ‘on the pill’.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 10:40 am
@viking. If you don’t name a father your welfare is reduced. I’d bet he is letting them use his name.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 10:44 am
The problem is very simple and so is the solution. We sponsor young women to have have babies, with no means of supporting them or even themselves. A young woman with little education is better off spitting out babies, to a variety of fathers, than she is working. The message our society sends is clear, if you have kids OTHER PEOPLE are responsible for them. There is no way that you, or the kids, will want for anything.
We pay young girls to fuck and until that changes the problem will continue, as will the wider problems in society caused by their spawn.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 10:46 am
Welfare blah blah blah
This ain’t about welfare it’s about Liberalism.
So many of you are liberals but you won’t admit to its failings even when they’re right there in front of you.
Liberalism is destroying our civil society. The evidence is so clear and yet like rabbits in headlights you do nothing but stand and stare.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 10:52 am
Harriet, they don’t have to lie. Case managers at winz are not permitted to raise the subject of contraception with clients. If they bring it up, sure….otherwise the soft cock option is the discussion of…are you in a relationship….and the definition of what is a relationship.
Pathetic to say the least.
And the penalty for broaching the subject of contraception first? One mighty arse hauled over the coals…
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:00 am
Correct.
Not so long ago, having a baby out of marriage was considered shameful. Typically the child would be adopted to a family better able to care for it. Or the father would be expected to step up and marry the girl and support both the mother and the child. There were not children starving in the street at that time. The system worked.
Now unsupported mothers are portrayed as selfless victims and are celebrated. I do not agree with giving single mums a hard time or laying a guilt trip on them. But I also do not agree with the rest of us paying for their lifestyle choices (and those choices do not come cheap !)
There are couples spending a fortune to try and have a baby. There are couples who are desperate to adopt. Many are very comfortable financially and would make great parents. Our current system denies them the opportunity to raise a child in fortunate circumstances, and condems them to less fortunate upbringings.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:06 am
“Not so long ago, having a baby out of marriage was considered shameful”
So what has changed?
I will tell you.
Liberalism, the ideology of clapped out old hippies and their fucked in the head equally narcissistic progeny has become socially and politically ascendant.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:24 am
the father would be expected to step up and marry the girl and support both the mother and the child
Yes and they would only do it the once, as well. Usually.
Most young males are irresponsible to certain degrees but it says a lot about how people have been brought up that there is a body of young males today who do this, this guy is not alone. And what sort of parents did he and the others have? Lousy ones, clearly.
Throughout all this no thought whatsoever from these people that the most critical thing in this equation is the kid who grows not only without a father but a father who clearly thought nothing of him or her, as he was
fuckingmaking love to hislatest bitchbeloved.We’re not alone of course this attitude is rife across the Western world, and those who don’t believe social engineering should observe and ask themselves why this is not rife elsewhere in non-western areas like Asia or the ME. Yet. It will come as it has already in Russia, but hey, Russia’s Caucasian, so maybe it’s just genetic, Caucasians are the “advanced thinkers.”
But that’s what’s caused this. Lefty-oriented “advanced thinking” throughout the Western world which says these people are victims, they’re merely reacting to the inter-generational circumstances wrought by poverty and their oppression and therefore they must have a total wrap-around service provided to them on a platter as befits an innocent victim, who did this through absolutely no fault of their own. If we eliminated that crap entirely from the political conversation I guarantee in one generation there would be a perceptible difference and in three we’d be back to a state where the family did make the boy marry the girl and it did only happen just the once, usually.
But that’s not “pwogwess,” is it.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:37 am
All of of our politicians will turn a blind eye and pretend ignorance of this article. What would they do to him in China?
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:38 am
Part of the problem is that the left have elevated women to the much sought after status of “victim”. This is the ultimate appointment, of the left, and exempts you from normal standards of conduct and scrutiny.
“A Timaru gynaecologist wants a campaign against promiscuity after encountering a shocking number of pregnant patients who cannot remember whom they had sex with.”
New Zealand women were the most promiscuous in the world, with 20.3 sexual partners on average. The world average was 7.3.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10737380
And that is the good news folks. It goes down hill, big time, when you start looking at their attitudes and behaviour, in other areas.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:47 am
“….There are couples spending a fortune to try and have a baby. There are couples who are desperate to adopt. Many are very comfortable financially and would make great parents. Our current system denies them the opportunity to raise a child in fortunate circumstances, and condems them to less fortunate upbringings…..”
Some women are making their fertility difficult by prolonging the length of time before they ‘try’ to have a baby. These women -and their advocates- call it ‘social pressure’. Yet most have actually been ‘working at’ ‘their careers’.Studies at Monash Uni said that it is ‘immoral’ for them to then expect the taxpayer to pay for UVF treatment.
Which then brings me to disagree with what DPF has been saying about the minimum wage. He supports the view that 16ylds don’t ‘need’ the income that a couple with a mortgage and children need. But I say “Why should a 16yld who wants to have a family and mortgage have to take longer to save the money[because DPF said they should be paid less] and then face the problem of fertility problems?
Well, they shouldn’t be paid less if you also want them to ‘fund in full’ their responsabillities – like paying for their children!
DPF’s position IMO doesn’t take into account other matters like house prices/mortgage affordability over say a 20yr period if childbirth is ‘defered’.
The natural re-generation rate of the population compared to the FULL associated costs of immigration over that 20yr period + the fact those children may then defer THEIR children for another 40yrs.
I can see why he hates Prosser’s point of view – no one around to wipe his arse in his dottage! {It’s a joke DPF}
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:47 am
You are all wrong. This is totally the collective responsibility of the mothers.
The law ought to work on the basis that there is always a plentiful supply of sperm available for any woman/girl who wants to get pregnant, and there is always protection available for any woman/girl who does not to. The law ought to assume the reality of life that for men/boys, any hole is a goal, and when it’s on offer, few of us would refuse it. Governments should not legislate against the laws of nature.
The law ought to work on the basis that sperm floats around in the air like pollen to flowers. If we had this as our starting point, the outcomes would be completely different.
Some people will not see the connection here, but I do. Why do we register dogs but not cats or rabbits for example. Well quite simply because society tolerates us insisting on registration of dogs. Why do we have liable parents contributions? Because so far, society for the most part tolerates us insisting of fathers paying. Why did we have a broadcasting fee for decades? Because society tolerated if for decades. Then suddenly we no longer tolerated it, and Jenny Shipley saw stopping it as a vote winner. And when Shipley ended it, broadcasting didn’t change one iota.
Liable parent contribution is a tax. It is a bad tax. What defines a bad tax? It is not naturally connected to its mechanical source (as in gst paid at the same time as the purchase to which it attaches). And a bad tax is honoured more in the breach than in the compliance. We ought to forget the liable parental defaulters, and simply accept that women/girls who get pregnant bear 100 percent of the consequences. Will it happen in my lifetime? No.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:47 am
Kea, sad isn’t it.
But it’s what feminism aims to do.
Some women are waking up to it.
Not enough, yet.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:51 am
Ann Coulter, speaking truth, gets slammed by the usual reality denying liberal fuckwits.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-QxrDbZTC0o&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D-QxrDbZTC0o
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 11:59 am
Okay backster. What would they do to him in China?
I think you might find that the answer is that they would do precisely nothing to him.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:04 pm
We are all huffing and puffing about some “rogue 19-y-o” who did something that every other 19-y-o lad would have done had they had the opportunity to do it. This lad carries no blame for anything. He did what nature gave us a dick and balls, and literally hundreds of millions of sperm to do. Any male animal in nature would have done the same given the chance.
New Zealand, we are hypocrites. We have taken this bullshit defiance of nature from the ridiculous to the extreme. Why do we not cherish and celebrate everything that is natural? Why are we always trying to defy Mother Nature? You can’t legislate nature out of existence. This is utter stupidity.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:11 pm
“who did something that every other 19-y-o lad would have done had they had the opportunity to do it.”
Crap.
How about you just speak for yourself and/or your own ill brought up progeny you amoral dropkick.
You with your juvenile liberal mindset are the fucking problem not the solution.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:12 pm
“…..Liable parent contribution is a tax. It is a bad tax. What defines a bad tax? It is not naturally connected to its mechanical source (as in gst paid at the same time as the purchase to which it attaches). And a bad tax is honoured more in the breach than in the compliance. We ought to forget the liable parental defaulters, and simply accept that women/girls who get pregnant bear 100 percent of the consequences. Will it happen in my lifetime? No….”
So boys DON’T benefit from a father? And there is NO social cost attached to that?
Well most young males in NZ’s prisons TODAY have spent little or no time with their natural fathers, and what are we mostly locking them up for ? Assualt. Rape. Murder.
Mothers in NZ clearly make fucken useless Fathers.
You are better to take the position of strengthening the Marriage Act, and placing Marriage back on it’s rightful pedistal.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Any male animal in nature would have done the same given the chance.
Yes but we’re not “any animal in nature” are we. Unlike any other animal we can form abstract concepts, this is why we live in houses and eat the other animals, rather than the other way round.
I mean if this guy really does walk and act like say a gorilla then fine, let’s let him off the charge because hey, he really didn’t know what he was doing. But if in fact he does what the rest of we humans do, let’s not let him off on those grounds.
That would be utter stupidity.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:17 pm
And what Viking2 said at 9.23am.
What if every single woman who gives birth from today, names John Key as the father on the birth certificate.
Hey presto. Overnight, the liable parent contribution is ended. John Key would have to pay one contribution, and every other dad would be instantly exempted.
This is one of the most stupid taxes in existence. Worse than the fart tax. Worse than the toilet bowl tax. Worse than the “dog-but-not-cat/rabbit” tax.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:19 pm
You can’t legislate morals.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:21 pm
HB (188) Says:
February 17th, 2013 at 10:29 am
Yes they do.
His choice to have sex.
His choice to not use condom and spermicide.
—————————–
And the girls as well.
Called personal reponsibility.
The Girls, as we are constantly reminded, has the total option of saying no. Anything after that is, as again, we are constantly told is rape.
So, shouldn’t these girls be accountable for their own actions instead of blaming the guy?
Of course excepting, that sometimes little accidents can happen.
Unlikely here. Sounds more like a goupy situation or one where he has “kent” his name for the sake of the benefit system.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Bullshit, Reid, all of us males are first and last, “male animals in nature”.
Any attempts to legislate otherwise are futile.
Liable parent contribution is a bad tax. Just like the broadcasting fee was a bad tax.
Come to think of it, the liable parent contribution is another broadcasting fee. ha ha. I like that.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:25 pm
Redbaiter (1,985) Says:
February 17th, 2013 at 10:46 am
Welfare blah blah blah
This ain’t about welfare it’s about Liberalism.
So many of you are liberals but you won’t admit to its failings even when they’re right there in front of you.
Liberalism is destroying our civil society. The evidence is so clear and yet like rabbits in headlights you do nothing but stand and stare.
———————–
What a load of bollocks Red.
This has been going on since Adam and Eve. You know the ones in your good book.
Rooting, despite your wish, is not new.
Vote:History is full of it and I’ve no doubt if you could follow your family tree far enough there will be a few instances of unplanned, unmarried or extra marriatal preganicies there as well.
Sometimes takes a bit to uncover them but its always there somewhere.
February 17th, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Viking2 is your typical old clapped out hippie, watching society self destruct because of his fucked in the head ideas, and constantly whinging about it, without ever realising its those ideas that are the root cause.
Typical that like all liberals he denies the reality of rocketing single mother stats. It wasn’t always “like that” fuckwit.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:31 pm
Reid#
Mothers and fathers are to be no longer defined by biology.
Anyone can do it – several at a time can be the ‘mum’. The local female teacher, female police officer, female judge, female prison officer. They can all ‘mother’ the same kid. You see it nightly on the news.
It is certainly clear then that natural mothers are not necessary to mothering. Presumably then natural parents are not necessary for parenting.
Anyone can be anything, they seem to be arguing – but without statistics!
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Vote:
February 17th, 2013 at 12:39 pm
“This has been going on since Adam and Eve. You know the ones in your good book.”
Are you completely fucking retarded?
I have said so many times I am not religious and have never been in a church and am agnostic on the matter of religion and still you helpless fuckwit you can’t seem to get it.
You are obsessed with your hatred of Christianity and therefore constantly compelled to conflate morality with the bible.
So shallow in your understandings you are completely worthless in the fight to restore our civil society.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
But we are not animals and we have erected cultural fences which are designed to preven this sort of thing from happening
Stupid Liberals have spent the last forty years dismantling these cultural fences in particular the institution called marriage.
The latest liberal insanity in this area is of course so called “gay marriage” – something that is completely bonkers
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
“You can’t legislate morals.”
Damn right for once.
That is why society must be moral within itself.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:46 pm
It is certainly clear then that natural mothers are not necessary to mothering. Presumably then natural parents are not necessary for parenting.
Harriet on UK official records and identity documents they’ll soon be labelled “Parent 1″ and “Parent 2.” Apparently Mothers and Fathers are old-fashioned and not at all “pwogwessive.”
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Sterilization chemicals in the water and an antidote available on application, would be my policy.
I shall now go mow the lawns before I am crucified!
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
“Sterilization chemicals in the water and an antidote available on application, would be my policy.”
Why not?
White genocide is the obvious end game.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:53 pm
“Ann Coulter, speaking truth, gets slammed by the usual reality denying liberal fuckwits.”
The link did not work but Goggle found one that did. I watched it and couple more.
The one on airport security was brilliant.
Another important she made was if you take single mothers out of the equation the crime rate for black is no higher than whites.
I wonder who the Maori rate of child abuse would compare if we only counted married couples.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
This is all John Keys fault dont you know Kiwibloogers !!
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:58 pm
Mind you marriage does not always work particularly if the parents are lunatic liberals. I am part way through “The Mask of Sanity” by James McNeish.
It make me almost feel sorry for David Bain.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
I never said the female has no responsibility. Obviously she does.
I am just absolutely amazed that some people commenting on here are asserting that it is not the males responsibility also. Women cannot make a baby on their own.
It is because of attitudes like this that we have the situation where men walk away and children grow up fatherless.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
“….Rooting, despite your wish, is not new.
History is full of it and I’ve no doubt if you could follow your family tree far enough there will be a few instances of unplanned, unmarried or extra marriatal preganicies there as well.
Sometimes takes a bit to uncover them but its always there somewhere….”
Infinticide too………and duelling…….are you suggesting VIKING that since they arn’t ‘social constructs’ that we should bring them back………..afterall, some creatures in the wild kill their partners after sex….and some kill their offspring – domestic cats for example leave the ‘runt’ of the litter to die…..much the same as when abortionists fuck up and leave the baby to die on a table….sometimes in a bucket!
Your arguement is fucken rubbish Viking!
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 1:42 pm
Oh well, it’s not as if we haven’t created this situation by instituting multiple laws that do nothing but reduce the legal and moral status of fathers to nothing but sperm donors and absentee providers of income, that is, if they happen to actually have a job.
Now we live in a society where we bemoan the constant lack of father figures. And ask any father who has been through the family court system about the bias that is constantly reported, where it appears much more weight is given to the testimony of the woman, and where unsubstantiated and unproven allegations are treated as proven and legal fact!
Fathers are vital, important, and should be a constant presence in the lives of children. As a role model to sons, and as a positive male figure to daughters. If this does not happen, then daughters grow up with no appreciation of what a good, strong man is, and end up sleeping with a similarly disadvantaged 19 year old who has fathered 13 kids!
Whos fault is this? Ours!
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 2:31 pm
Arse!
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 2:51 pm
Our legal system is nothing more than institutionalised misandry. It is profoundly and deeply anti-male on all levels. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or ignorant of the facts.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 3:31 pm
But you CAN legislate based on a preceding morality….thats what good objective law does. It starts with individual human rights and defines laws which protects them from violation…nothing else. The question is….what morality…gleaned from where? I answer…from perception of species Man and the requiremnets of his nature as Man in this objective raelity. Freeing people from being forced to be liable to fund the breeding habits of others is consistent with such law.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 4:07 pm
Redbaiter (1,990) Says:
February 17th, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Viking2 is your typical old clapped out hippie, watching society self destruct because of his fucked in the head ideas, and constantly whinging about it, without ever realising its those ideas that are the root cause.
Typical that like all liberals he denies the reality of rocketing single mother stats. It wasn’t always “like that” fuckwit.
———————————–
Oh dear, poor old reddy has been talking to himself again.
I’m sure I saw him the other day. A grubby looking longhaired tramp sleeping on the local bench, all the while muttering incoherently to himself.
Reddy, ranting and muttering and expousing the rubbish that you do is just a denial of human existence with all its warts and procivities.
Its human nature and spewing for bile and mistruths about stuff isn’t going to change human nature.
These things have always been in somesocieties, many driven by various sky fairy beleifs.
There is just many many more of us and like crime and so many other things its relative to the population and any person’s particular attitudes.
7 billion I think is the current count as oppossed to 1.5 when you were born a couple of years back.
Harriet (1,059) Says:
February 17th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Infinticide too………and duelling…….are you suggesting VIKING that since they arn’t ‘social constructs’ that we should bring them back……
Hardly comparable.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
The comet’s tail of shit that flows out from scenarios like this is what makes New Zealand poor and in a downward spiral.
Might be an anomaly, but there are still thousands of women out there squirting out pups to losers like this like there’s no tomorrow. Most do it for three reasons; the cash obviously, holding on to their awesome, dangerous yet nice when you get to know him tattooed boyfriend, and so they’ve got something to ‘love’ because often they were not loved themselves.
Until a NZ political party steps up and equates our ultimately dangerous and unaffordable welfare system with child neglect, a vote for National or Labour, or the Greens or any of the others surely has to be a vote for child abuse
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 7:10 pm
Since the first root ever took place between what we now call man and woman, nothing has changed.
Men root anything that has a willing hole. Men don’t get pregnant. Men don’t have babies.
All men do is put sperm randomly and uncontrollably into the society as a whole.
The ONLY control over the use of sperm is not in the hands of Governments. It is in the hands of women and girls.
Till our Government lives and co-operates with this truism, there will always be one or another imbalance in our social equations.
In nature, males never control pregnancy. Yet our Government thinks it can legislate control over nature. How naive.
When governments recognise that women and only women control what goes into and out of their wombs, we will make our first moves back towards a sensible solution to the overall social balance, including male/female families, mothers and fathers roles in society, pregnancy, single parenthood and many other peripheral and related issues.
Dad’s paying a tax, because they lost the tax lottery, is not a sensible solution to anything.
But like I said on this earlier today, we will not come to our senses on this in my lifetime. Our present thinking is far too entrenched in the lottery of who impregnated whom and whether and whom mum wants to or not want to name as the dad. Something that ought to be totally unrelated to the tax system. A tax system based on a lottery, is a barbaric tax system.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 7:40 pm
“Mayvbe it is the dads that should be sterilised!”
Jesus DPF!…have the sisterhood got to you that much?
The slappers who slept with this POS are the one with the ultimate responsibility. Is not one of the pillars of the feminazi movement right to control their own reproductive cycle?
They simply cannot have it both ways, either they take responsibility for what might happen if they have consensual sex with a bloke and do not take precautions or they go back to being second class citizens who rely on a man to provide for them.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 7:42 pm
“Ann Coulter”
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Coulter is bat shit crazy.
Vote:February 17th, 2013 at 7:52 pm
We are continually told that what goes on in the bedroom is none of our business. I wish that was true. As soon as something goes wrong, such as a disease or pregnancy (also a disease in many twisted minds), we are all dragged into the bedroom. They get all the pleasure, every one else gets the pain.
Vote:Those bastards in Wellington have a lot to answer for.
February 17th, 2013 at 8:11 pm
“….When governments recognise that women and only women control what goes into and out of their wombs, we will make our first moves back towards a sensible solution to the overall social balance, including male/female families, mothers and fathers roles in society, pregnancy, single parenthood and many other peripheral and related issues….”
That’s better.
A man’s role in society, through the family structure is not only important but vital. He supports the mother mentally, physicly, financaly, and in lots of cases spiritualy. He is an example to the sons as to what it is that they should one day do. And an example to the daughters as to what they should expect. That is what Marriage really is about: The re-generation of a somewhat ordered civil society based upon the natural order.
If men are devalued in a relationship and the government is prepared to pick up most of the cost, men will simply have no reason to stick around. And the prisons are currently full of what’s left behind: The sons. And the daughters are currently ‘full’ of the next problem – their fatherless children. A disordered society, where those who are ordered pay for the disordered.
Marriage doesn’t fail people, people fail Marriage. People who attack Marriage[s] attack society. Being poor husbands and wifes, mothers and fathers, is an attack on the next generation’s society.
The Marriage Act needs to be strengthened.
Vote:February 18th, 2013 at 8:12 am
And they have 13 children, and they have 13 children, and they have 13 children and they have 13 chidlren…
THis guy is the ‘adam’ of 370,000 new beneficiaries.
Darwinan Natural selection is preferring the unemployed and uneducated. Maybe this is why modern humans are not a patch on those from 2000 years ago?
Vote:February 18th, 2013 at 10:49 am
The marriage act does not need strengthening. You can’t legislate morals, nor ethical behaviour.
It’s all very well, Harriet, talking about what a “man’s role in society” is. But our debate here is about what society does when “man’s role” and “woman’s role” don’t comply any more – such as when nanny states get themselves entrenched into the process, and these horrible things we like to call “unintended consequences” come about.
Such as young women (girls) acquiring some sperm from some completely irrelevant source, to set up an income for themselves at far too young an age, and they lock themselves and their unfortunate offspring into a life of doom.
Locking the sperm donor into the same doom in this situation (so society can gratify itself by saying it is fair dues for ten minutes of natural behaviour), is crazy. It’s societal madness. It is society stabbing itself in its own back.
We need for the breadwinners in our society to succeed. It is counter-productive to saddle any one of these breadwinners with any disincentive whatever against their being the best possible breadwinner they can be. Particularly when the saddling is analysed, and found only to be collective societal sour-grapes.
Sour grapes is no way to run a country.
Vote:February 18th, 2013 at 11:40 am
“……..It’s all very well, Harriet, talking about what a “man’s role in society” is. But our debate here is about what society does when “man’s role” and “woman’s role” don’t comply any more ….. and these horrible things we like to call “unintended consequences” come about……Such as young women (girls) acquiring some sperm from some completely irrelevant source, to set up an income for themselves at far too young an age, and they lock themselves and their unfortunate offspring into a life of doom….”
Go and read what I said – to paraphrase – good parenting is what usually stops “unintended consequences” and the “DPB income stream”. But not always.
“…..The marriage act does not need strengthening. You can’t legislate morals, nor ethical behaviour…”
Most people who get divorced get taxed by lawyers. Then they bludge of the government.
There is no reason that parents who DON’T get divorced prior to their youngest child turning 18, should not receive support from government – less in taxes to pay while they have children.
In other words an inducement to stay Married – a practical and helpful inducement. But MORE importantly an inducement TO get Married – for those who have ‘unintended consequences’. How else could you support them? An abortion isn’t support.
There is no social ‘cost’ in a good Marriage, only benefits to society – and the next one.
Go study the hard sciences tropicana – likes maths.
Vote:February 19th, 2013 at 12:28 pm
We all being sterilised with fluoride
Vote:February 19th, 2013 at 12:35 pm
Blaming males is not the full picture.
I’ve always maintained Maori females are squarely to blame.
They let in the first Maori male they can get in their doors and open their kids to abuse and even death.
If they knew their DPB would be cancelled after court cases where their kids have suffered due to the males they let in their homes they would be far less inclined to let losers in their doors.
Vote:February 19th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
so why not sterlise recidivist pregnant females with histories of child and domestic violence in the courts
Vote: