What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CDZ Why it's legally easier for a woman to choose a welfare parasite than a productive citizen?


VIP Member
Oct 15, 2016
Reaction score
This question is DELETED from politic stackexchange by some liberal mod

The topic is similar to this Which one can afford more children, a millionaire or a welfare parasite?
The way I understand how it works is the following. Imagine if a girl wants to choose a guy to knock her up.

If she chooses 40 children by 20 mothers: the feckless father who insists 'God says go forth and multiply' it's legal.

If she chooses Charlie Sheen Claims He Can't Afford Current Child Support Payments it's illegal or legally impossible. She can't prostitute herself to Charlie Sheen. She cannot commit not to sue Charlie Sheen a gazillion dollars if she is knocked up.

In fact, it is pretty much legally impossible for rich Charlie Sheen to have 40 children. Child support will bankrupt him. Yet it is very easy for some feckless dad to have 40 children with tax payers' money.

And I wonder why?

There is a discussion here

CDZ - When Liberals Want to Eliminate Poverty They Actually Increase It

Someone says that welfare encourage the poor to breed.

A liberal then says

I don't know any liberals that support any guy running around having 20 kids. Hell, I don't know any liberals running around supporting anyone having more children than they can afford. To pretend that there are men that are running around having children with women that they will not pay for is something entirely new is fantastic. The issue is that there is nothing that can legally be done to prevent it.

Why does some liberals think that there is nothing that can legally be done to prevent poor people from breeding kids they obviously can't afford.

XXXX -- Mod Deletion --- No linking to outside message boards...

Even libertarians, that usually favor decriminalization of things people think should be a crime, like drugs, etc, do not think having children you can afford is absolute humans' right. They think it's an aggression.

The issue I consider is

  1. Humans' right. Right to breed
  2. Technicality.
On those 2 issues, there are many laws that violate the 2 principles even more.

While there is no law preventing the poor from having many children, there are laws preventing the rich from having many children. That is child support laws. Rich people tend to get sued for huge child support than the poor.

Also there are many things that the law can do to discourage the poor from breeding.

In fact, there is a lot of laws in US that prevent the rich from breeding. US prohibits polygamy, prohibits prostitution, prohibits rich men from hiring and fucking a woman (under sexual harassment laws).

And you think there is nothing that can legally be done to prevent someone poor producing 20 children?

Just force sterilize (temporarily) anyone that produce kids they can't afford. That's a solution. Is it a best solution, I don't know.

Or pay people to postpone having children. Rather than giving more welfare to poorer people, give more cash to those with less.

-- The reason of deletion is in the comment

Beside deliberately inflammatory language, the framing of the question makes no sense. The main differences is how variable Charlie Sheen's income has been and the fact that the British “feckless dad” is probably broke and wouldn't be able to pay at all (but even modest child support payment would likely represent a larger portion of his income and a heavier burden on him than on Sheen). Also, Sheen didn't just “knock up” Richards and Mueller and they didn't “prostitute” themselves to him, they were married, this has legal consequences but that's not a surprise.
The whole post is a bunch of nonsense. Just to note some of the most egregious, please note that while Charlie Sheen must pay child support, he has not been forbidden from having more children; and the purpose of prostitution is not "breeding", and that poor people are not exempt from paying child support.

I think both comments miss important points.

Say both Charlie and that Feckless guy offer $1000 per month child support. A woman cannot make such deals with Charlie. That's because amount of child support is decided by the state. However, a feckless dad can. In fact, he can breed and breed and breed without having to worry about child support. Charlie, however, cannot.

Also anti prostitution laws also gene pool survival for the rich. Why? Because many rich people would prefer having sugar babies than wife and that can be prohibited by anti prostitution laws. Rich people can lost more money in alimony than poor people. In fact, a good lawyer can pick the place of divorce to enlarge that. So marriage is not like a normal contract where people decides what's working.

The issue here, is that liberal often think that it's humans' right to breed 20 children they cannot afford. However, liberals think that becoming sugar babies, or having consideration when fucking a rich guy is prostitution and hence should be illegal.

I wonder why?
Last edited by a moderator:

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List