Monday, September 19, 2016

IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE, SIMPLE.

I understand that it is often politics but Sepeloni's crusade one morning last week on the reduced benefits for solo mothers who refuse to disclose the sire of her spawn is just not good enough.

Yes it could be argued that a drop of around twenty five dollars a week for such actions will impact on the children but there are other compelling reasons for the disclosure and not just making the sire responsible for the costs of raising the results of his desire, to avoid his obligations is but one.

One of the big issues resulting from much more widespread adoption regimes that preceded the massive welfare cash injection currently seen as a solution for unplanned, unwanted  or worse, offspring created for supposed cash reward, was not having easy access to biological parent records seen as a disadvantage in modern medical practise.

Yesterday in conversation with a good bastarnd who is watching his life's partner descend into the abyss that is alzheimers, is the progression of considering there are suggestions that it is heritable with a possible genetic interruption to protect some as yet apparently unaffected.  A recent heralded possible treatment to put the development of this modern scourge that has manifested in part due to many enjoying longer life from the tremendous advances in coronary, vascular and cancer treatments that allow other afflictions to present.
With solo mothers declining to divulge the sire then half the potential genetic mapping is hidden and with much at stake in health and its expanding costs, that trumps whatever reason for non disclosure might offer.

When added to the financial burden on taxpayers from the conscious decision hide a sire's identity it becomes imminently more sensible to "reward" those who choose or find themselves relying on a benefit for whatever reason and comply with a reasonable request for the sire of a child to be identified.

To suggest there may be valid reasons for non disclosure is not credible and  typical of the welfare love affair that seems to be part and parcel of socialist thinking.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I see this practice of non-disclosure as an overt form of child abuse. Why should a child be deprived of all the benefits of paternal identity (which includes social and legal considerations), on the whims of the mother? Can you imagine the future complications this may cause, just starting from there being only one name on the birth certificate.

MarcW