# 33 year old has 30 kids, 11 different mothers



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

bellisaurius said:


> I have no interest in protecting the guy. My interest is regarding the desire to punish someone for what's essentially one of our biological functions in a way which physically harmed no one. There's no argument for him to continue reproducing, I agree, but there's no argument for castrating him either.


My problem with him stems from the fact that he is producing all of these children with no income in which to house and support them (the women are equally as guilty), I take issue with the fact that this man will continue to reproduce and the government system (i.e. tax payers dollars) will take up the slack in order to provide what he cannot. Ultimately I damn him on two fronts one for creating the children that he cannot support, care for or help in anyway and on another front where he wishes to use the government to skimp payments on because he couldn't afford a 5 dollar pack of condoms. Unfortunately I can't say to hell with the children, because they are innocent and they are children -- it's not their fault they have disgusting people as parents. But it is quite another to encourage this idea that a man can have this many children and expect others to pay for his horrible decision making. This man should be persecuted in some way.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

bellisaurius said:


> I have no interest in protecting the guy. My interest is regarding the desire to punish someone for what's essentially one of our biological functions in a way which physically harmed no one. There's no argument for him to continue reproducing, I agree, but there's no argument for castrating him either.
> 
> *Can one be guilty of neglect without custody, btw?* That doesn't seem logical. You can punish him for not making payments, but not for whether he's involved or not. The payments are his portion of responsibility.
> 
> And please. We're all humans. Within our legal system, we're all supposed to be treated with dignity by the state, ergo we all have it, our desire to indicate otherwise notwithstanding.


Yep, it is a crime to not pay child support, which implicitly neglects the child by way of withholding the means of sustaining its life (whether or not that money is actually used by the custodial parent to raise the kid or simply as spending money). No child can live off of $1.49 of support, not even in Mexico using USD. If he doesn't want his hard earned money taken, perhaps he should lawyer up and take custody of his children. 

Another thing to think about. This guy is paying $1.50 a month for each of his kids...guess how much his takehome pay is each month? Less than $100. Divide that by minimum wage, and this guy is 33 years old, and works 15 hours per month. Per MONTH. To repeat, this guy is 33 years old, works 15 hours per month...and has 30 children that aren't receiving anything of significance from him whatsoever. Honestly, if he had any compassion for his children whatsoever, he would use some of that free time to babysit the children, which carries with it the neat little bonus of them actually spending time with their father. Nope. He goes to court and asks for a break in child support, instead.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

Reversing the question here. If the problem is the creation of 30 children, why aren't we punishing the mothers? He's not the one who decided to have the kids (at least all of them, anyway), as we have abortion plus adoption in the US.


----------



## dilletante (Apr 13, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> Here's how you solve that problem. Don't have kids until you're ready to. Including but not limited to aborting an unplanned child. We have a very specific system that prevents anybody from getting behind the wheel of an automobile. Otherwise they are inherently a high risk of hurting or even killing another human being. That we don't allow people to command an automobile before they are ready to, but not a single fck is given when somebody is not financially, emotionally or psychologically ready to raise children but decide to do it anyway, is completely retarded IMHO. Somebody gets pulled over for drunk driving, their license is taken. Somebody has kids without any ability to raise them properly? Don't worry, John Q. Taxpayer is there to throw thousands of dollars to incentivize it.
> 
> Who are you to inherently disadvantage another human being, who didn't have a single choice in the matter?


This is getting back government sponsored eugenics, who's the decider of parental fitness? Do you have an algorithm of what it takes to be a good parent? What about people who change after having children? This concept disturbs me on so many levels. But despite my personal distaste of eugenics, this would never legally work in the US. Nobody has a crystal ball which describes what kind of parent someone will be.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

Nobody is saying not to punish the mothers. But, going back to the stats I posted a couple pages back, many women believe they can raise a child on their own as well or better than allowing the father to help. The state is biased towards awarding custody to women...regardless of actual financial or psychological ability to do so. Are we going to punish women for the ex-husband being a deadbeat also? There is no doubt that these women bear some of the responsibility of this, but then that is why the social programs are there for their assistance. The issue is prevention. What is more reasonable, vasectomy for this one guy, or the 11 mothers? How is making sure somebody can't make his life any worse, punishing him? Oh right, he's not actually making his life any worse, not a single nickel will be taken from him with more kids produced. Not sure how apparently not changing a single aspect of his life is punishing him? Instead of having unprotected sex with whomever he pleases...he would be having unprotected sex with whomever he pleases. 

Here's an idea. Maybe he can do some porn, take advantage of his 15 minutes like Octomom, at least she is trying to do something to raise her kids. But no, putting forth any effort to improve the life of his children is not a concern of his. Something needs to be done, period. A vasectomy is BY FAR the best solution, since he apparently can't do anything himself to change his circumstances.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

benr3600 said:


> So I pose this question to you: why should we allow the innocent to be punished for a lifetime of unanswered questions, mental/emotional anguish etc. for someone else's complete lack of responsibility?


Because life goes on?


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

dilletante said:


> This is getting back government sponsored eugenics, who's the decider of parental fitness? Do you have an algorithm of what it takes to be a good parent? What about people who change after having children? This concept disturbs me on so many levels. But despite my personal distaste of eugenics, this would never legally work in the US. Nobody has a crystal ball which describes what kind of parent someone will be.


I already implied a solution, and made a very clear example: the licensure of driving an automobile. The state has a pretty good idea of who will be a good driver and who won't be. The state has a pretty good idea of what child abuse is, which is why social services can and will take your child away if you abuse the right to bear children. The only argument here, is what constitutes child abuse? Not providing a significant means of raising a child is abuse to me, and apparently electing not to is a crime. The concept is simple: you choose to either take custody of a child, or provide means for the custodial parent to support it. This is currently a loophole. How would you like it if you were a custodial parent, and your ex sent you a check of $1.49 each month? You'd be pretty pissed off, right? This guy is a total deadbeat, only the current legislation doesn't account for this loophole exploitation. 

There is no doubt in my mind that the mothers here are beyond idiotic, as is the father. But he has the opportunity to provide something for his children, and instead he is sitting on his ass at home working less than five hours per week. I'm actually positive that in some states that is grounds for arrest for neglecting child support. It's akin to quitting your salaried job, becoming a server, and only claiming $2.35 an hour as taxable income in order to screw over the parent in child support.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

Really? This doesn't need a special explanation. Some people are just dumb and impulsive.


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

benr3600 said:


> Here's an idea. Maybe he can do some porn, take advantage of his 15 minutes like Octomom, at least she is trying to do something to raise her kids.


Ha! Capital idea! To keep that many girls in orbit, he probably has a member like a corn cob that gets used with rhythm of a metronome, so he should be perfect. 

As to the keeping the mothers on the hook, I'm a bit surprised you agreed, but actually, I'd be on board with that. If one thinks the problem is big enough to punish women who the media would portray as sympathetic, that person considers it a very serious problem indeed.


----------



## Master Mind (Aug 15, 2011)

Arrow said:


> My problem with him stems from the fact that he is producing all of these children with no income in which to house and support them (the women are equally as guilty), I take issue with the fact that this man will continue to reproduce and the government system (i.e. tax payers dollars) will take up the slack in order to provide what he cannot. Ultimately I damn him on two fronts one for creating the children that he cannot support, care for or help in anyway and on another front where he wishes to use the government to skimp payments on because he couldn't afford a 5 dollar pack of condoms. Unfortunately I can't say to hell with the children, because they are innocent and they are children -- it's not their fault they have disgusting people as parents. But it is quite another to encourage this idea that a man can have this many children and expect others to pay for his horrible decision making. This man should be persecuted in some way.


Something should be done in cases such as this. He's clearly shown himself incapable of making responsible choices. And the children have to suffer for something that had absolutely no choice, say, or control in.


----------



## themartyparade (Nov 7, 2010)

Arrow said:


> You can't be serious. He got 11 women pregnant 30 times, that is nearly 3 children for every woman he has slept with. Are we really saying this man is so mentally deficient that he couldn't have chosen to either a. stop having unprotected sex or b. stop having sex all together at all? You can buy condoms for 5 dollars at any convinence store around the corner. This man deserves a permanent sexual disease for all that he is inflicting on these children by not providing for them.


I don't know the reason why he/they didn't use any kind of protection. But that's not to say all these children were intentional on his behalf.


----------



## Arrow (Mar 2, 2012)

themartyparade said:


> I don't know the reason why he/they didn't use any kind of protection. But that's not to say all these children were intentional on his behalf.


In 2009 he was quoted saying that he wouldn't have any more children -- he had 20 by that point. He now has 10 more three years later and he still can't support him. The point here is that it is ridiculous to say that he didn't know he could get a woman pregnant by not using protection. Not using protection means that you are taking the risk that the person will become pregnant. Not protecting yourself makes all of that even more possible and probable to the point that it damn near becomes intentional.


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

themartyparade said:


> I don't know the reason why he/they didn't use any kind of protection. But that's not to say all these children were intentional on his behalf.


What is the point at which inductive reasoning sets in? Having unprotexted sex with no contraceptives ==> making babies. One dozen? Two dozen?


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

The man appears to be INTJ, though there does not appear to be an interview video publicly available, so typing has some uncertainty. From the pictures, several women with his children appear to be ENTP, while one is INTP. A man can have many times the number of children as any woman, so it is evolutionary advantageous as in the case with Desmond Hatchett.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

You know I finally figured out why the posts about making the guy wear a condom or something bothered me too. It's like a slap in the face to all the kids that are already born. I think I'm finally starting to see why I feel the way I feel about some aspects of birth control.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

i saw this and actually was discussing this the other day, my thoughts are that the guy gets a thrill out of banging new chicks with no protection, the problem is that they keep getting pregnant. He likely keeps himself at minimum wage because he knows if he works harder (on the books) he will have to pay more. I dont doubt for a second that he is making money off the books, maybe even selling drugs. What baffles me the most, is that assuming he was honest, how any woman would want a guy with that many kids? If you told me you had 30 kids and were that young there would be no way id get with you! There is no way to be a proper father to that many children.


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> You know I finally figured out why the posts about making the guy wear a condom or something bothered me too. It's like a slap in the face to all the kids that are already born. I think I'm finally starting to see why I feel the way I feel about some aspects of birth control.


I dont see how its a slap in the face to the kids to say "30 is enough".


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

He's gonna make a fortune on condom commercials "Don't do like me, use a condom"


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo (Aug 15, 2011)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> I dont see how its a slap in the face to the kids to say "30 is enough".


It is indeed enough, and yet think about what people thought about this guy while he was say, 15 kids in. People say this guy needs to stop having kids, wear a damn condom, get a vasectomy. But the kids born after that, are they seen as just another burden to society rather than a person?


----------



## bellisaurius (Jan 18, 2012)

Mendi the ISFJ said:


> I dont see how its a slap in the face to the kids to say "30 is enough".


The implication is that the children are a burden on the system, or possibly 'your mommy and daddy shouldn't have had you so you shouldn't exist.' I'm sure the percentage of people who would out and say that is low (and only slightly larger for those who may consciously think it), but one doesn't have to read far between the lines to pick up the "I've got my portion of the resources, don't make it have to split it."

There are of course, good counter arguments to that, but it doesn't mean it doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouth of those of us who were born accidentally to bad parents.


----------

