Make him pay more. He decided to pop out so many kids, he can suffer the consequences.

What can they do to someone who hasn't broken any laws? If he doesn't pay child support he'll go to jail just like a socially irresponsible tax cheater.

This guy is clearly a loose cannon, and the only resolve you could reach is probably Prozac's suggestion,but this brings up a side note/question that always comes to my mind in child support issues.-

The child support/abortion bag. 

Most who are pro-choice believe that a woman's right to abort a pregnancy is her decision alone and the government or no one else has the right to tell her what she can do with her own body for whatever reasons because there is no line to be drawn as to what those reasons may be.  This also means that the decision to carry out the pregnancy is her's alone.

So if a man has no say in this matter, how is he to be held responsible for the forth-coming consequences of this decision? If it were against the law and the woman illegally aborted on her own, the man would not be held accountable if he supported her decision  nor would he be considered a victim of any sort if he were against it.

It just seems very lop-sided and unjust to me. Shouldn't a man have to support the decision to have a child if he is to be held accountable?

If you say "he should keep it in his pants" than aren't we making the male in any case out to be the sole perpetrator.  I ,for one, would like to have some say so in matters that will affect the rest of my life.

I'm sure this has been discussed here before but not since I have been here that I know of or remember

Maybe he can get in on that porno that Octomom is doing to pay her bills... 

I tried tp make it clear that i wasn't speaking on the matter of the man in the OP.  That guy is no different than those  in the animal kingdom that pounce on any female in heat that he can manage to weasel his weasel into, then run off to the next leaving the female to raise her young.  I guess at least he hasn't resorted to killing the young offspring tho. 

Maybe it would be more accurate to label him a serial reproducer.

Serial Anti-Killer?

 Your logic says that he should be rich beyond the dreams of avarice because he got all this money from the government since he had all those kids.

You tell me why he isn't wealthy and I'll answer your question.

 I'd say the women bear some responsibility too. Don't fuck a guy who is broke if you expect to get child support.  

When two consenting adults, or educated teens for that matter have sex, they both know the score.  They can choose to take precautions or let desires make their decisions for them.  

This is a very simple matter of personal responsibility on the part of the male, and to a lesser extent, his parents who should have made sure he knew the score before he got his junk wet.  

When you decide to sleep with a woman there is a chance she will get pregnant regardless of any circumstances.  No birth control is 100% fool proof.  So crazy bitches trying to trick a man has nothing to do with anything.  He knew there was the possibility of pregnancy, so if she gives you the old "it's OK, I'm on birth control" you still have the option of strapping one on to be safer, just in case she's not responsible about taking her pills every day.  If he didn't take the precautions he had full power to take, then too bad so sad.

Sex for a man or a woman is a matter of CYA (cover your ass) or deal with the consequences.    For instance, a man says "it's OK baby we don't need a condom, I had a vasectomy" if she lets it happen and she gets the clap it's mostly her damn fault.  She could have told him to strap up or he's not getting any.

I sure as hell don't condone a woman trying to trap a man.  It's happened to me, and it was complete BS on her part.  But the fact is, every time I went in unprotected, I was NOT ignorant of the fact there was a possibility for pregnancy. 

Parents, tell your boys, assume chicks WILL try to get you at some point.  

As for the idiot with 30 kids.  The courts are damned if they do, damned if they don't.  If they take more money out of him and he can't afford to live, he'll go on welfare and quit work.  The kids are the number 1 priority of the courts.   It does the kids no good for them to punish this guy more who already makes next to nothing.  Sad but true.  Maybe someone should go around subconsciously planting the idea in the kids minds that they each punch him in the face, or kick him in the nuts when they get old enough.

                                                           I hate breeders of any sort.

My question is how can anyone claim to be concerned with child welfare, war, the enivironment, unemployment, low wages and still not support stopping this man with serilization or jail. Why is the only reponsible behavior forced on people taxes?

It's that nasty freedom thing. He has the freedom to be as stupid as he wants. We have the freedom to hold him responsible for his actions. We give the government the freedom and ability to help others. 

I never thought I'd be more libertarian and freedom loving than you and Beyond Saving.

Why don't you draft a law and present it to your congressman instead of bitching about consequences of actions that are not currently illicit?

There's a bit of a difference. EXC is demanding rather extreme forms of punishment for something that is not criminal.
Rarely has someone here actually suggested that religious folk be locked up and sterilised simply for practicing a religion. Or anything else for that matter.
Bitching about something crosses the line into fascism in this circumstance. So my response was geared to get EXC to try it and fail miserably, like all fascists do, rather than be about me bitching about his bitching.

Fact is that there is no justification for such an extreme response.
The women he had kids with were equal partners in this. Perhaps they should all be locked up and sterilised.
The kids inherited his genes, maybe they should too.

One thing is blatantly obvious, and that is should EXC ever gain any real power, he'll be assassinated within a week.

Except his freedom imposes a burden on everyone else. Even if one is a libertarian/conservative against all welfare, they children are likely to grow up to criminals, homeless and use a not natural resouces. Since we already live on a crowded planet, his freedom is a big problem for everyone.

BTW, I'm not a libertarian. Libertarians don't belive in social contracts(only every man for themselves), they believe in special rights for themselves. Libertarians believe in things like private land ownership which I'm opposed. Basically they are just like Rebublicans and Democrats believing in special rights for themselves at everyone else's expense.

Again I'm against something for nothing, so what political group represents me? None. Politics is all about getting something for yourself at others expense.

I'm for helping the poor with job training as long as they agree to limit family size. If you're going to grant special rights like the right to breed then no social contract can work. You can't have relationships where some people give and the others just take.

That's the freedom we have to hold him responsible for his actions, remember?

Since you're so concerned about living on a crowded planet I'm surprised you didn't advocate killing his kids. You also don't seem to object to rich folks breeding like rabbits as long as they can afford it. Again, against your view of wanting to limit overcrowding on the planet.

You still haven't explained how he's not wealthy from all that government money he got from all those kids. That's why he had them (according to your ideology), right?

   Statistically speaking, that's a problem that will most likely be solved by other black males.  Social pathology and all that stuff....

War is natures way of doing population control. I'm not in favor of it, I'm a hedonist, so I'm against anything that causes misrery without increasing pleasure. I'd rather see population control done by rational means rather than let nature do it the old way with war, disease and starvation.

It's an interesting question. If you're rich are you entitled to greater use of earth's natural resources? I don't like the idea that because one is rich you can buy mother nature. But it you contribue more than others to the well being of society, perhaps you should be allowed to have more children.

I think after you a single child, you should show you have adequate resources to care for the child before being allowed to have any more. We already put people in jail for child neglect or failure to pay child support. I think you tell people pay up for you kids or get sterilized or jail. So I don't see how this is punishment. I want to end child abuse. This is the law we need now, perhaps in the future modify it.

When did I say that.

What I say is welfare and all these leftist solutions create a massive moral hazard, an incentive for bad behaviors. You have people with little ability to care for children having them. Your solution is to give them a reward for this behavior. You don't solve the problem, you just spread the  problem onto the rest of society. People that behave this way continue this culture.

Same thing with employment. The reason businesses can pay low wages is an oversupply of unskilled labor. But you don't want to do things that could fix the problem like mandatory birth control and job training, fixing schools, stop illegal immigrants. Instead, you want minimum wage and unions which create massive moral hazards and unintended consequences that make the problems worse. Business has less incentive to hire low skill people, you make the problem of oversupply problem worse.

You're like a doctor that just prescribes pain killers but never eliminates the causes of disease. All you do is kick the can down the road.

But if there are no condition like job training and limiting family size, all you've done is create a reward for irresponsible behaviors. You're enabling this guy to go out and do more. I claim that lack of resourses is then the controlling the upper limit on family size.

I guess if you buy into the argument that a sperm is person, then yes I'm killing them. I want a world with no poor people, then nature won't kill them with starvation and other problems with poverty. I could argue that you're killing them or making them suffer because you want them born into a world where no one has the resources they need.

Like I said, society should decide if someone has the resources to have more children after one. If not, they need to pay up, self-sterilize or jail. There probably needs to be an upper limit on the middle class and rich as well if is there is lack of a resources and environmental damage from industrialization.

Why do you think this is so cruel? Isn't jail already forced sterilization(no sex)? So  we already 'sterilize' tax evaders. So why the problem?

When did I say I wanted to "conscript the poor"??? Or that I "dig" war. War is the inevitable outcome of people like you and the religious right's objections to any rational population control. If there aren't enough resources to go around, what else is going to happen except people will fight over them? You put too many rats in cage, they fight. It not what I want, it is how nature works.

I think your just making shit up about me because you can't counter with reason or science. War doesn't solve the problem because we've had both war and poverty since about the time life began. What we haven't had is a way to end war and poverty if people would only use reason and science.

You're answer seems to be let this guy have another 30 kids, then if they are poor blame it all on the '1%'.

Not quite. It's if your poor and you need public assistance to adequately take care of your kids, you can't have any more until you prove that you can. If you're way behind on child support, get serilized or go to jail.

Well aren't these people going to pay a huge portion of the taxes that go to support this guy's offspring? So shouldn't you want a lot of rick folks if they pay the tax bill instead of you? The top 1% pays 38% of the taxes you know.

I don't think the that rich pay enough for their high use of natural resources. But if they pay more than their share of tax and they don't ask you for any money for their kids, should you care that much? But I still think even for the rich that are paying a lot in taxes there should be an upper limit on the number of kids because of the damage overpopulation does to the environment.

You paid more taxes than Romney? Somehow I doubt that.

What would a realistic solution, punishment or deterrent to this look like?  Most of the exchange in this thread has been about unrealistic punishment for something that is not as yet considered a crime.

Unfortunately I'm not sure a realistic one exists.

One "more realistic" hypothetical:

At the point a man has kids by 5 different mothers (or 7, 10 or whatever number becomes the consensus limit) he MUST keep child support paid/keep the kids off welfare (not including medicaid) or he is deemed as putting an irresponsible burden on the taxpayers of the state.

He then has to undergo a significant period of counsel ling AND either:

A) Maintain full time employment plus do a set amount of community service per month.

B) Maintain full time employment and go to school (GED, College, Tech. School) for a set amount of credit hours per period  

C) Go to school full time and preform a set amount of community service.

He should have to fulfill his obligations of either supporting the kids or A,B or C til the last one turns 18.  Upon satisfactory sign off of counseling completion by the counselor, community service can include public speaking to school children on reproductive responsibility.  Failure to comply means jail time.

Even though this is far more realistic than most suggestions I've seen, I don't think this would work.  If a guy is lazy, just a messed up individual or mentally ill, they will more than likely go on welfare/ apply for disability (whether scamming or not) and claim their disability prevents them from fulfilling the courts orders.  Beyond that they may just say F it and let a warrant get put on them, and sooner or later, go to jail.  Either way the kids, and the taxpayer loses out.

I think overpopulation is a huge potential (likely) problem the world is going to face, but I can't see any law concerning sterilization of offenders in a democracy.  Maybe in a real world sense this guy deserves to be, but a democratic govt. can't reasonably go around doing that to people.  

A ton of social pressure should be put on these types of guys, they should be outed in social media, the news media should shine a spotlight on them.  Given how common it is for guys to have kids by 4-5+ mothers society should take a stand on the practice.  Cases like this should be graphically shown to kids as part of sex education as well.  Other than someone beating some sense into these dudes in a dark alley, I don't know what else can realistically be done.  

Guess what we already do. What is incarceration and the death penalty? No access to sex = No kids. Death = No kids.

We already incarcerate people for not paying child support. So just call it a get of jail card.

Democracies with a safety net for the poor are inevitable going to be forced to do this or go broke. The ones that don't can not compete economically.

They don't posses empathy or social conscienceness at all. This guy is just a breeding zombie.

And what is the lesson? Have as many kids as you want and the government foots the bill. If you do study and work the government takes much of it in income tax and child support. So if you want to be a breeder, who is to stop you?

I don't know why it seems like to you some kind of torture. Tons of responsible people voluntarily do it every day and they lead happy fulfilled lives without more kids. We tell drunk/bad drivers you can't drive and take their license and car. We can force men to join the army and kill other people. We isolate people with infectious diseases.

Every other activity a citizen can do that could potentially adversely affect society or harm others requires permission or a license from the government. So why have this one exception?

I highly doubt that many female guards get knocked up by male prisoners. I know the reverse happens but this behavior is illegal. Your logic doesn't make sense. It's like saying we shouldn't lock up murderers because some murderers still murder while there in prison. How about just changing prison so there is no murder or sex going on?

I think the main point of prison is to protect society.

Social pressure may have been effective when we had close knit communities in the past. But now, people are very transient and the Internet is hardly a tool for social shame. Look at all the trolls and bad behavior that goes on online.

The lesson is there are few negative consequences for the individual. Society bails you out with welfare. Are any of the guy's kids starving? It's like paying taxes, you can say all day how good it is for society and 'our' children to pay your taxes. But at the end of the day someone's got a put a gun to people's heads to make them pay. Talk is cheap, people can figure that out.

Overall you have to keep the population at a point where there is no too much competition for jobs and natural resources causing high unemployment and environmental damage. As it is now, we have to make difficult choices between land and water for humans vs. land and water for endangered species. We need to get population down to where this difficult choice is not necessary. Down to where we don't have overcrowded roads, schools, etc..

On and individual level, we need to decide a minimum standard for how much food, shelter, clothing, education needs to be spent on each child. If the parents don't have the resources for what they already have and require public assistance, no more kids until they can.

Well then everything the government does is fascism. Why isn't tax collection fascism? Why isn't mandatory inoculations fascism? Shutting down unsanitary businesses? Stopping prostitution and drug use?

Well what is the line on how high taxes can go? Of course people are going to fight over it. But I would say if children are going hungry and there is no more land and water to grow more food without destroying habitats of endangered species we are over the line. Nature is doing population control for us.

Yes I know especially the religious right. They support policies that increase human suffering, then they are the placebo for they suffering, what a racket. It will probably take a great famine like China's to change the consciousness unfortunately.