By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Desmond Hatchett is petitioning the court for entry of an order reducing his child support. In tough economic times that is not uncommon. What is uncommon is that Hatchett has fathered 30 children by 11 different women. The children range in age from toddlers to 14-years-old. Hatchett earns minimum wage and half of his check is apportioned among the children. That means some mothers receive as little as $1.49 per month for one child. The prolific father has previously appeared in court in 2009 to answer charges of failing to pay any support. Then he had 21 children and promised to stop procreating. Hatchett explains the current situation this way, ” [W]ell you know what we mean, I had four kids in the same year. Twice.”
The law regards procreation as a fundamental right. Most religions support the ideal of large families with the Catholic Church banning all but the most fundamental type of birth control. Americans have long recoiled from China’s “One Child” policy to combat population explosion. Given that backdrop how does society deal with such irresponsibility? Do children have to suffer poverty or becoming wards of the state simply because some people can’t suppress their urges or behave irresponsibly? Do conservatives have a point when they argue that welfare benefits based on the number of children to be supported breeds this type of behavior?
The state has no right to order Hatchett or his “Baby Mamas” to stop making babies. Should it in such an extreme case? If not for Hatchett, for the children that he obviously cannot support?
Source: WREG (via Yahoo)
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger