11 Babies from 11 Different Fathers
An article on Campell Live on Tuesday night deserves comment. (Sorry, this video clip will only be available for a short time and I don’t currently have the skills to save the clip in a useable form).
The clip is about a 21-year-old mother in Australia who advertised for sperm and impregnated herself from a donor. She blatantly states that she wants no man in her life or father in the child’s life. She wants lots of children and has a target of 11 that she plans to produce in the same way. Of course, her choice is based on being entirely supported by the state.
In my opinion it’s a story of state-sponsored child abuse. It brought out some of the issues in a shallow way, but it’s a shame no representative of fathers’ groups was interviewed. I believe there should be a presumption of illegality for either a woman or a male donor deliberately to bring a child into the world without any intention of providing a family or any relationship with the biological father. Only in special circumstances should a Court be able to give people special dispensation to do so legally and to be entitled to state financial support for doing so.
The DPB, rather than providing basic welfare assistance to stave off starvation and exposure, has evolved to provide a viable, long-term lifestyle for women who choose to keep having babies. It has become so on the backs of men from whom the state steals in order to reimburse itself. This particular Australian woman promises not to ask for any contribution from the father, (yeah, right…) but it wasn’t made clear whether the state was extracting reimbursement from him. If not, then the woman must have been deceiving the welfare authorities in order to withhold the father’s identity, and this was ongoing because she said the father regularly contacted her to see how things were going. Regardless, someone has to pay for supporting this woman’s lifestyle, and such taxes are mainly taken from the blood, sweat and tears of men such as those who die in Australian mines.
This situation was a subset of the larger problem of state-funded child abuse. Every time the DPB encourages procreation into a situation with no father, and every time it facilitates the break up of a family unit, children are abused. In a very small proportion of such cases this may be outweighed by abuse that was occurring in the family unit, but mostly it’s just a matter of the adults seeking some elusive greater personal happiness at the expense of their children’s best interests.
The article showed how erroneous feminist ideology has so effectively become part of the average person’s belief system. Both the young woman and her mother expressed confident opinions that biological father involvement is irrelevant to children’s development. Who can blame them for believing this, given that most government policies and laws imply exactly the same? The DPB in its various forms across the developed world was introduced during an era when such beliefs seemed like common sense. Since then knowledge from research has built to show clearly that such father-marginalizing beliefs are unfounded, but DPB and child-related policies have not changed significantly. Feminism jealously guards the rights and privileges accorded to women at the expense of children’s best interests and society’s functioning.
I disagree with the writer that:
The article showed how erroneous feminist ideology has so effectively become part of the average person’s belief system. Both the young woman and her mother expressed confident opinions that biological father involvement is irrelevant to children’s development.
I believe that this case demonstrates the extremes of the present system, and is generating a huge negative reaction from the public.
This case is making people ask the question ‘ Is it right for girls to set out to be solo mothers?’
the difference between believing and knowing the case is generating a huge negative reaction is substantiation, and in this case, where in New Zealand the law that was made to protect this event to occur, (the COC Bill being put in improper) we down under have a chance to stem its developmental progress which is directly discriminatory to the child and indirectly discriminatory to fatherhood.
So your comment is most valuable if it is true where its instrument can be directly capitalised. Would you do this if you were fully aware that the law entitling women to have children without providing the child with a developmental association with their father was legally improper?
Surely, if people are giving and living by opinions that biological father involvement is irrelevant, doesn’t that indicate successful feminist indoctrination? However, I agree that that it’s good the case is causing some people to question the values emobodied in state policy.
The New Age Woman’s Easy Guide To Wealth.
Look out for a professional man.
(The more he earns the better)
Invite him to your house.
Before you get him pissed,ask him his name and address.
Go through his pockets and flush his condons down the loo.
Make a fuss of him like his wife doesn’t do.
Stay friends with him for awhile until your test results come through.
Then toss him aside.
Send him a bill of $400 a week,via the IRD.
If he complains and says that he had a vasectomy years ago,tell him that the IRD do not believe him.
Neither will they believe the next two you find.
Disgusting but true.