Hi Boozy,
Yeah, I heard this on the new the other day. In order to have sex he has to have the courts "permission", what ever that involves.
But I don't think this is entirely ludicrous.
You said:
"Imagine the outrage if the court had ruled that one of Oakley's four paramours could have no more children until she was employed or married. No court is that stupid. Besides, what punishment would they impose were "Ms. Oakley" to become pregnant? Forced abortion? Sterilization? Prison?"
I was a foster parent for a few years and I know for a fact that they do "regulate" the women after a number of births, and they don't wait until NINE children pop out! There have been forced sterilizations and "forced" abortions. I suppose if the women would ignore the court orders they could also go to prison.
But this example is ONE man with NINE children who is not taking care of any of them. Most the women with children with multiple fathers only have a few children. And each man she has gotten pregnant by is the father to way less than nine children.
Along those same lines, if the women have to many children and neglect them or abuse them, then they are taken away from them. Guess what? Tax payers pick up the support of these children too, while the fathers just go off and led their own lives with no responsibility. What a deal for them!
Where are the fathers that produce these kids? Where are the fathers of these children who don't care if their little ones are fed and clothed? Who knows? But they aren't there to help these women raise these kids so the pressure isn't so much so that the women have enough food on the table and help with disciplining and raising these kids. So these women and children for the most part, live in government housing, that the taxpayer pays for, and keep having more children by men different then the previous child's father.
None of these men feels responsible enough to make sure his child is taken care of and not neglected or abused and put in foster care, just as long as they don't have to bother with any of it, and it keeps going on. Believe me, it is a rare father indeed, that shows up to object when he child is place in foster care! I never saw it one time.
So I would think that if the women have to end up having their children taken away and are forced into sterilization after several kids, more power to them, that the authorities are finally stopping the men from making babies that they are not supporting. Personally, after NINE children this man should have been forced into sterilization like so many women are. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
On the other side of the coin, both partners have the responsibility of birth control. Did this man with nine children ever hear of condoms? Was he responsible enough to make sure that his girlfriend was taking her contraceptive pill every day? I guess from what I have seen, these men just go around from "flower to flower" "pollinating" and have no regards to what happens to the "seeds of their loins". But how this came about is another social issue and I could go on about that, but I won't.
Just wanted you to know that there is really the other side of the coin here. I figured you don't know. Now that you do, maybe you might not see this situation with this fellow with NINE unsupported children in a different light? I think that they did this because he was having so many children and maybe it was time to set an example. I doubt that this will become the norm. Too bad though, both sexes should be held responsible in these areas and then there won't be a dire need for foster care and adoption and so many children won't grow up in need, negected and abused. Who has more rights? The men and women reproducing irresponsibly, or the innocent children going unsupported, emotionally and financially? And why should all the taxpayers be putting out money for these persons irresponsibility’s?
One more thing. In the days gone by as you discussed, when parents had many children, there were reasons for large families. They were needed to work the farm. Some died off due to illness and accidents. In the inner cities, they helped with the businesses. And the big thing, BOTH parents were there. Both concieved the children, both raised the children, both disciplined the children. They were very proud of their families and supported them both emotionally and economically. Each parent worked their butts off to make sure the children got what they needed. That included the parents doing without for the childrens sake.This certainly isn't true today. Parents went without food and clothing so that their children had it. Poppa just didn't donate sperm and go on his merry way, leaving behind a trail of needy children, leaving the mother to deal with it as best as they could.
There was no welfare of foster care to pick up that responsibility either. They did what they did because children were important. So they had the RIGHT to procreate as many children as they wanted. Do you think that is so today? Sometimes rights are taken away because people do not deserve them.
Food for thought?
Lindy
