FriendBurst Blog

For some people, breeding is far too easy an activity. It doesn’t really even take half the brain we actually use to create an offspring. For a man, it may take even less. Much less. Maybe only a tenth, if that. I think there are some guys that put more thought and consideration into what shirt they’re going to wear rather than what might spew from their loins. Like these guys:

Luther Crawford, a 49-year old man, living in Kentucky, has sired 12 children with 11 different women.

Howard Veal, a 44-year old man, living in Michigan, has sired 23 children with 14 different women.

Sean Talty, a 30-year old man, living in Ohio, has possibly (they’re not quite sure of the total yet) sired 7 children with 6 different women.

Desmond Hatchett, a 29-year old man, living in Tennessee, has sired AT LEAST (he believes that there are more) 21 children with 11 different women.

Unfortunately, these four men (and the 42 gullible women who “love” them) are not unique cases. Statistics show that one in every five women has multiple children by multiple fathers and there are between 23 and 24 million children that live without their fathers. Sure some of those children are the result of situations of marriage, divorce/widowhood, remarriage and divorce/widowhood but far too many of them are the products of nothing more than casual dating or convenient booty calls.

Moral society used to keep situations like these in check. Single women that found themselves to be in the “family way” were either immediately forced into marriage (sometimes not with the father of the baby) or were suddenly shipped off to live with an aunt or grandmother in another state, never to be heard from again. The unwed women that kept their babies were considered to be “bad girls” with their children given the status of “bastard” and treated as such by most communities. It was unfair, of course, since the unwed fathers never suffered such vilification, but it also made most girls think twice before giving in to their boyfriends’ bright ideas. The possibility of a shotgun wedding also made some of the boyfriends a bit more careful. Not always, but definitely more often than today.

Then came the Pill and legalized abortion. Women didn’t have to get pregnant and, if they did, they didn’t have to stay pregnant unless they really wanted to. They didn’t have to marry anybody or run away, and they didn’t have to be vilified. Shotgun weddings became a thing of history. Moral society became outraged since they no longer had control, so they fought back and produced the pro-lifer. The pro-lifer not only vilified women for not staying pregnant but also for preventing the pregnancy in the first place. Of course, to avoid the obvious hypocrisy, moral society immediately had to relax its opinion of the unwed pregnancy.

Today, moral society’s opinion of unwed pregnancies is so relaxed that it’s practically comatose. Women are not only allowed but are encouraged to be unwed and pregnant as often as they find themselves in that position. Women are not forced, explicitly or impliedly as in the past, to give up their children for adoption. Men, especially like those mentioned above, are allowed to take advantage of this situation and procreate without thought or responsibility. In an effort to enforce parental responsibility for these illegitimate children legal society has provided paternity and support laws, but when a guy is 29 years old and has 21 children (and counting) with so many different mothers just how much support can he provide? Financial or emotional.

Even though I don’t agree, I understand the basic opinion of the pro-life movement. Abortion is not a good thing, but then neither is the unbridled and prolific breeding of children that one or both parents don’t really want. Children should be created as an extension of a couple’s hope in their future, not because sometimes it just happens or some nefarious reason. It’s unfair to the children. It’s unfair to society. Birth control is a good answer but, from what I’ve been reading since the news that insurance companies have to cover birth control, pro-lifers don’t like that either. So what do we do about these situations where four men can hook up with 42 women and create 63 children that they didn’t want and have no real intention of supporting?

I have a solution. I’m sure it’s probably not the best solution, but it is a solution. It would cut down on abortion, it would reinforce the institution of marriage, and it would reduce the number of unwanted and unsupported children. It would take some effort to enact and implement, but in a few years it could be running as a matter of course. Whatever it would cost to set up and enforce would be minimal to what could be saved in the long run. Sure it would require legally modifying some personal rights, but aren’t we used to that by now. Basically my solution would work like this:

1. Except in the case of a legal marriage or legally established committed relationship, a man could father no more than four children. Once he has fathered four children, he would have to undergo a mandatory, non-reversible, vasectomy.

2. If a man is in a marriage or committed relationship, he may father as many children as he chooses as long as they all have the same mother and as long as the children and their mother reside with him. Should he have children previous to his marriage, stray from his marriage/relationship and father a child with another woman, or divorce, he would then be subject to the four children limit.

3. A paternity DNA screening would be run on all children born and a notation made on their birth certificate. All persons not screened at birth would be required to submit their DNA for paternity screening. No access to licenses, services or benefits of any kind, including public schooling, would be allowed without evidence of having submitted to DNA paternity testing.

I’m all for zero to negative population growth so I really wanted to set the limit at two children, but my Man thought that would be too restrictive. I suppose there should also be an exemption for sperm donors of the medical, not social, variety. I’m not sure how to handle the men that would disregard the limit, such as getting five or more women pregnant at one time, but that could be worked out. Depending on how much would truly be saved, maybe there could even be incentives given to men who voluntarily underwent vasectomies before they reached their limit of children. That, of course, might be too much (as if the rest of it isn’t), but what do you think?