Terry Turnage has fathered 26 children by 15-20 different women, the precise number being difficult to establish. And that’s not all: he apparently has failed to pay child support to any of the women who bore his offspring, all while driving expensive cars, throwing elaborate parties, and spending money on everything but his bastard progeny.
He is a co-owner, with one of his many sons, Terry Jr. (and maybe one of many Terry, Jr’s), of Club Envy, an Arkansas nightclub. Recently Terry Sr. threw a two-day party for his birthday. He threw another party for 700 guests.
Of course, that could just be his relatives.
What does society do with someone like this, so irresponsible and shameless? It you lock them up, they can’t support any of the kids. We can’t castrate him (cruel and unusual, that) and courts can’t order citizens not to procreate, or ensure that they they don’t. That’s Nazi stuff, though the U.S. did a bit of it until relatively recently.
Here on Ethics Alarms, about all we can do is to designate a man like Turnage as a fick, the label here for an especially despicable and unethical citizen who lacks shame, and even appears to revel in his or her anti-social conduct.
Let us save a bit of contempt, however, for at least some of the irresponsible fools who allowed this man, of whom they knew nothing, to impregnate them. Two of the women who have been left with children that Turnage refuses to support admitted to reporters that they attended one of his lavish parties as paying guests. “Why?,” they were asked.
“To have fun. Just to have a good time,” said one. A moron.
“It wasn’t nothing. It wasn’t to see him,” said the other. Also a moron.
It is bad enough to have one man acting like Turnage, but with parents like these, his offspring are liable to be ficks as well.
Pointer: Res Ipsa Loquitur
17 thoughts on “Terry Turnage, Serial Father and Utter Fick”
Reality TV show coming, no doubt.
It will all be OK. American taxpayers will pay their bills for life. Why should the mother or Terry Turnage care about their children? Based on our government’s behavior and policies, this is the government’s view of the ideal family.
No doubt that this guy is a fick however I wonder how many of these women saw his display of money and wealth and decided that a child with this man would be a good source of income in the form of child support payments? I’m amazed at the number of women who intentionally get pregnant and then are able to live off the child support these men must pay. Has it always been this way?
For a certain subset of men and women, yes.
Under some circumstances, the state can forcibly sterilize people. See Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).
That was the link I provided. It’s an infamous decision, and no longer good law.
Buck was never overruled.
No, but all the laws it referred to were declared unconstitutional in state courts, repealed, and even basis for lawsuits.. It would be over-ruled, using subsequent SCOTUS decisions as precedent, if it ever got to Court, which it won’t/ Hell, Dred Scot was never over-ruled. It’s just a dead decision.
Dred Scott was decided prior to several amendments to the Constitution. There is no doubt that it was correctly decided at the time, as the 13th Amendment had yet to be passed, let alone ratified.
Oh, there is plenty of doubt about that. Slavery could have been found unconstitutional based on the Declaration at any time. The point is, many bad decisions don’t need to be overturned—everyone just agrees that they are bad law, and ignores them. Buck v. Bell is a good example. The US Supreme Court ruled there was a fundamental right to procreation in Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942), which effectively rendered the case null and void without specifically saying so.
that would have been a naked power grab by the court.
The Court’s Constitutional review powers began as a power grab by Marshall—I don’t think it would have been such by Taney.
Wait, wait, wait…
How do we know the exact number of children, but not the exact number of mothers? I can understand the other way around, but unless there’s some baby swapping or adoption, knowing the exact number of children implies knowing the exact number of mothers…
I also thought that was weird. What’s more, there are more children than mothers, so some of them went back for seconds AFTER they already had spawned a child that he wasn’t supporting.
All the baby-daddy baby data had better be out there in googleland or else there’s gonna be a nasty allele-to-the-__th-power (a high coefficient second only to full sibling connections) off-springing in the next generation or two or even further down the ever-widening line: congenital birth defects, spontaneous abortions (which some might consider a positive outcome but it’s destructive of the mom’s health), weak immune systems, high mortality rates, and … oh… an ongoing drain on public resources.
For the time being, it’s bad enough that Turnage is seen as a hero, an icon of male virility to the young and/or dumb — [wow! 26 kids by 20 women who wanted It – what a man! Hey, I can do that too. And it’s a whole lot more fun than getting my head bashed in by a linebacker, huh. Wonder how many it takes to break the record . . . .].
See now…. I’m going to Devil’s advocate here for a second. I’m not sure I believe this position as stated, but it’s been niggling in my head.
Because of Roe v. Wade, women have absolute control of their bodies. Regardless of what you think of abortions, regardless your feelings on Roe v. Wade, they do.
And so, where if a man wants a child, his options are: Find a willing mother and adoption. If a man does not want a child, his options are: Sterilization, Condoms, and living chaste.
If a woman wants a child, her options are: Finding a willing father, or an unwilling father, in-vitro, or adoption. If a woman does not want a child, her options are: Sterilization, about 20 distinct kinds of birth control, an abortion, adoption or living chaste.
Male choices end at conception, I’m not sure if that’s ethically sound. Of course it isn’t ethical to force a woman to have an abortion, or to carry to term. Her body. But that creates an imbalance in the relationship of the parents that put the man at a distinct imbalance. If a mother doesn’t have the financial ability, the structural ability of the maturity level she deems necessary to be a mother, she can either have an abortion or give the child up for adoption no strings attached. If a man doesn’t have the financial ability, the structural ability or the maturity level necessary to be a father, and the mother wants the child, too fuckin’ bad. Man up. Don’t be a deadbeat. Pay that child support.
Would it would be more reciprocal if a man, when faced with a pregnant mother, be given some kind of grace period? It doesn’t need to be a long period, where he can financially opt out. Would it remain fair to him while giving the mother ample time to have thoughts like “Can I be a single mother, or do I need to make other plans?”?
I saw this idea floated once, and it hit me as rational, but I can’t help but wonder if something was missing. The immediate response from a feminist was that no man would ever choose to be financially burdened that way, but I disagree. I think there are a lot of responsible men out there, who would love to be a part of their kids lives and a lot of irresponsible single mothers. That isn’t a blanket generalization for everyone in those groups, but it should be a part of the conversation. Look at this case: One guy, absolute scum, complete fick. 20 irresponsible, stupid women.
I give up – I just want to win the ficking contest.