Consequences for Single Mothers

[AFTParticipant 2722]

There is proposed legislation in Springfield, to require a father to be listed on a birth certificate to a newborn child, in order for the birth certificate to be issued.

Either a father must be conclusively established by DNA evidence, or within 30 days after birth, another family member who will financially provide for the child must be named, or a birth certificate will not be issued, and the mother will be ineligible for financial aid, from the State for support of the child.

Looks like the state is finally fed up with the poor decisions of all the empowered strong independent sluts, and wants to minimize its exposure to Chads’ bastard progeny. Must be hard to finance Social Marxism, with men pulling out, in more ways than one.

Somehow I doubt that this Illinois Bill will make it through, being Gynocracy and all, but it’s a step in the right direction. Well here’s hoping…

http://chicagoist.com/2016/02/20/lawmakers_file_legislation_that_wou.php

When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan

[ConstantineParticipant 4416]

LOL!!

Aww, that’s cute! Might be such a thing as justice after all…

But you can just imagine the backlash that they’re going to get.

And hey, being named on the birth certificate is probably just be another way to stop men from escaping child support. I don’t think it’ll have anything to do with honouring the father by actually including him in the documents.

But, let’s see what happens. Great suspense…

To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle. -Orwell

[experiencedParticipant]

This is good news.
Ironic how it’s portrayed as making things tougher.
No, it’s not making things softer for the terminally mentally
fat assed laydeez.

It’d be nice if it were “natural consequences for single mothering.”

"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22520]

From what I have heard is the bill states that if a father is not listed the mother can list a family member.

So, according to this bill, if you have a sister, and she gets herself knocked up, she can list you as the person that is financially responsible for her actions. And you either pay child support for a bastard that in no way you created, or you to jail.

This will not end well for anyone.

[FrankyParticipant 2338]

Faust For Science wrote:

So, according to this bill, if you have a sister, and she gets herself knocked up, she can list you as the person that is financially responsible for her actions. And you either pay child support for a bastard that in no way you created, or you to jail.

This will not end well for anyone.

Thank god i’m a single child.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22520]

Franky wrote:

Thank god i’m a single child.

Do not discount female cousins.

Though, if the state makes it so that men have to pay for the actions of their female relatives, or go to jail.

Many of these men do not have families of their won because they are barely surviving, with them already to the wall. This type of bills will drive men to the point where the only question left for them is how they want to go out.

Clearly these fools behind the laws do not understand that the most dangerous person in the world is someone who has nothing left to lose.

[VarunParticipant 2981]

“Must be named”??

So like, the mother could name ‘any member’ of her family ‘without’ their consent?
Men who have female siblings……BEWARE!!!

Or maybe I got it wrong… maybe there IS a consent thingy involved…I mean…right?

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Holy s~~~. Did you guys catch the way the female author phrased that s~~~. Check it out:

despite this being the year 2016, some lawmakers feel a single mother has to prove she’s somehow deserving of state aid.

That’s what’s wrong with voting women & single mothers out there. Who actually believe – because it’s 2016 – that spreading her legs and allowing herself to get pregnant somehow entitles her to state aid!! Like she doesn’t even have to prove it!

DC Sluttsbury are you KIDDING?

IN WHAT UNIVERSE DO YOU BELIEVE A WOMAN SHOULD BE ABLE TO SPREAD HER LEGS, HAVE UNPROTECTED SEX, (THE ONLY REQUIREMENT TO PUNCH A KID OUT) AND COLLECT STATE AID FOR THAT???? ARE YOU HIGH, WOMAN????

2016 on the calendar doesn’t mean you get paid for screwing without birth control. 2016 on the calendar means you’re a “strong and independent female” who can get a job, or take the pill, or keep your legs closed. Not expect state aid just because you got knocked up. Parasites like that have 15 kids, and then a 16th!

….. and then they blame “the fatherlessness problem” on men!

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Executor MaxwellParticipant 591]

…. I don’t know about this one, not as good as you think frankly I’d say it’s bad, as I read it, (having gone to the bill proposal it’s self) this won’t prevent paternity fraud, in fact much the opposite. It requires her to name a father to get state aid. The state will only go in to DNA tests if she refuses to name someone. No need to check if it true as long as she point to a wallet. Or at the very least no new requirements have been added in that regard as long as a name is given.

The only sensible bit is hidden in the tail end of the bill, seems they don’t want to pay for artificially inseminated mothers since they cant legitimately just point to a wallet in that case, so they added this bit.

However, if an artificially inseminated mother wishes to
raise the child on her own, she may obtain a birth certificate
for the child with only her name on the birth certificate if
she signs a release stating that she waives her rights to any
financial aid provided under the Illinois Public Aid Code for
the support of the child.

Varun wrote:

“Must be named”??

So like, the mother could name ‘any member’ of her family ‘without’ their consent?
Men who have female siblings……BEWARE!!!

Or maybe I got it wrong… maybe there IS a consent thingy involved…I mean…right?

Having gone for a second look it’s even worse that the first review, this is a section proposed for removal.

Unless otherwise provided in this Act, if the mother
was not married to the father of the child at either the time
of conception or the time of birth, the name of the father
shall be entered on the child’s birth certificate only if the
mother and the person to be named as the father have signed an
acknowledgment of parentage in accordance with subsection (5).

The need for the named father to consent to being list as the father is being removed if this bill passes. This thing is a disaster! It’s just a desperate cash grab by the state government trying to force the responsibility on to any random man they can find.

[xenonParticipant 2007]

OMG. Somebody, not her for sure, but somebody needs to be held accountable. What a modern empowered female she is. I am for mandatory DNA testing at birth for all children. Paternity problem solved.

[Anonymous 42]

AFT wrote:

Must be hard to finance Social Marxism, with men pulling out, in more ways than one.

ATF, that belongs on the wall! Short, sweet, and full of meat! Well said!

There will never be consequences for single mothers, that suffering is reserved for men. With the likelihood of the Supreme Court becoming more liberal Marxist, laws like that will be knocked down as the kau tau to holy vagina runs it’s destructive course.

It’s not sustainable, when it finally collapses (and it will)the fall will be great, then and only then, hell will be paid in spades…
Time to time I can smell the stench of rotting corpses leaking from my time machine…

[Anonymous 0]

xenon wrote:

OMG. Somebody, not her for sure, but somebody needs to be held accountable. What a modern empowered female she is. I am for mandatory DNA testing at birth for all children. Paternity problem solved.

EXCELLENT IDEA, YOU WANT WHAT!!

Why is it that no one in authority seems to have any common sense? A mandatory paternity test at birth would solve a multitude of problems with women’s lies. And if the woman doesn’t know who the father is (PROVEN rape cases excluded) then she is on her own.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

While I am the first person to encourage a man to shoulder the responsibility for his choices, actions and mistakes, I don’t see how establishing paternity is going to make much difference in the most extreme cases.

This woman with 15 kids… half of the men who put a baby in her are probably in jail or dead already. Society (you and me, buddy) are still going to have to pay for her wanton disregard for life and cavalier attitude toward personal responsibility.

You can protect yourself from the direct consequences of reproduction by having a vasectomy, but you can’t protect yourself from the state taking your money and giving it to pieces of s~~~ strong, independent women who have children they can not afford on their own.

[TaxGuyParticipant]

In my mind, what makes this even worse is that these laws are really there to help an innocent child. The child doesn’t get to pick their parents, and somewhere along the line we put in laws to provide some level of support for a child with a s~~~ty parent. Of course, being a s~~~ty parent, they see it as their money, not the child’s money. So it becomes her money that she is entitled to.

Now it has become so twisted that the story becomes about how we could be taking money away from the mother. It was never intended to be her money in the first place.

I knew a woman years ago that was made fun of by her friends for working. They all went out and got pregnant and got on the dole as they put it. She was shunned for wanting to better herself. Good for her, but the sponges far outweighed the one good one.

Never mind the fact that the “dole” is provided by us.

Order the good wine

[bobphiloParticipant 1772]

Any women who cannot keep her legs closed, or at least use contraceptives, and becomes a producer of children she cannot provide for should be declared an unfit mother and the children be adopted by couples who want and can afford to care for them properly.

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

Dumb question- Is it possible that a man could be named financially responsible without his consent?

[hellraiderParticipant 2837]

Yup, prefer peace to piece, i think this new law will be corrupted into forcing men that are not the parents into paying for the single mother bastards.

Every other law put in place to regulate male to female relationships ended up being distorted into screwing men over.
This will not be different.

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

Thanks Hell Raider-

That’s what I thought too. Damn.

[OldBillParticipant]

Executor Maxwell wrote:

The need for the named father to consent to being list as the father is being removed if this bill passes. This thing is a disaster! It’s just a desperate cash grab by the state government trying to force the responsibility on to any random man they can find.

That “consent” never really existed and, as you’ll see, doesn’t really exist with the new bill.

Consent in most states follows the California model.

The mother names a man and either provides an address or the states dredges one up. The state sends out notification by mail to that address and if the man doesn’t contest the mother’s assertion, he has “consented” to be the father. Of course, in many cases, the address is wrong and the man never receives the notification, but because he never contested it he’s still named on the birth certificate.

The fact that he never knew he need to contest anything is deliberately overlooked, just like medical personnel in the delivery room routinely and deliberately overlook the fact that a newborn’s blood-type means the man present for the delivery cannot be the father.

It’s an Opt Out model versus the Opt In model. Companies use it all the time to sign you up for additional services with additional fees. For example, when renting car, you need to uncheck several little boxes to avoid paying for the unnecessary insurance the rental agency offers.

Prefer Peace to Piece wrote:

Dumb question- Is it possible that a man could be named financially responsible without his consent?

As I explained above, that’s done all the time already. Making matters worse, most states don’t allow paternity to be questioned for any reason after a certain period of time has lapsed. Those time periods are absurdly short too, often measured in weeks.

So, even if a DNA scientifically proves him not to be the father, a man is still on the hook thanks to a woman’s lies and the state’s connivance.

With the proposed Illinois law, a paternity test is required but just what type of test or how many tests isn’t mentioned. You can bet your last dollar that “consenting” to the test will be construed as consenting to the results no matter how sketchy the test may be.

In recent years we’ve seen several scandals involving state and local crime labs manufacturing test results and otherwise deliberately mishandling evidence in tens of thousands of cases. Are you going to bet your freedom, mental well-being, and financial security on the results of test conducted in labs run by the same governments increasingly desperate to find men to pay for the increasing costs of supporting the increasing number of bastards increasing numbers of women are s~~~ting out?

This is just another fugitive slave law. Sugar coated, but still a bitter pill.

Do not date. Do not impregnate. Do not co-habitate. Above all, do not marry. Reclaim and never again surrender your personal sovereignty.

[Faust For ScienceParticipant 22520]

Prefer Peace to Piece wrote:

Dumb question- Is it possible that a man could be named financially responsible without his consent?

Yes. It happens all the time. A bitch claims a stranger is the daddy of her children and the court ignores the evidence and forces the man to pay child support extortion or go to jail.

This is one of the reasons some MGTOW refuse to have anything to do with women.

[Author]

Posts