NationStates Jolt Archive

Can't have it both ways, jackasses.
Welcome to America, where you can have it both ways.

Just not on public television channels.

Society deems? When you have 3+ kids on no job or a single minimum wage job, society doesn't have to deem shit, you are struggling to make ends meet if you are able to at all. And you have another kid? Child endangerment.
Medical care for even a single person isn't peanuts, much less more than 2, and especially for kids who are sick more often than adults. Then let's take into account the greater amount of room needed (that they won't have because they can't afford), clothes and shoes needed replaced at a rapid rate, food for that many people, etc.

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. My comments were about how some argued for separating the mother from her children.

I have no doubt at all that government asistance would be required in that situation. If the government did not provide the required assistance, abuse and neglect would most likely follow. But since someone in the situation above would receive such assistance, I think we can safely assume that the increased risk of neglect and child abuse has been avoided.

Well, if they can afford them without society's money, I see no reason to object.

Then you would object to me and my children. I could not have them as part of my life without the help of Canadian taxpayers.

Dude, we're not talking about what "society deems."

Whether or not you can feed your kids is an objective reality. Society doesn't magically create the phenomenon of malnutrition.

Whether or not your kids have shoes in the winter is an external fact. Society doesn't magically create frostbite.

Society can notice that, hey, you're completely failing to even try to provide fundamental necessities for your many offspring! Society can then decide that you're an abusive, negligent fucker, and your children shouldn't pay the price for your lazy, selfish, idiotic attitudes.

And thank heavens for that.

Remember, this thread is about people who are receiving money from the government. This means money from the taxpayers. They are being PAID by we the people.

If I'm paying to rear a child, I think I get some say in how it's reared. If I'm the one paying for its housing, I think I get to say where it is housed.

If these parents want the government and the people out of their family decisions, they're welcome to quit taking our money.

The objective reality of my economic situation is that I can not provide all the basic necessities of my family without government assistance. When society deems that I am lazy, selfish or idiotic because of this is not objective at all.

Fortunately for me and my family, my society has decided that I should be given money instead.

Addressing the issue of accountability to the taxpayer by the welafre recipient: this seems logical and just. If we look at the welfare situation as the government paying the mother to raise the kids properly, we could argue that the employer (the government) is within its rights to ensure that their employee (the parent) is doing her job properly (raising the children without abuse or neglect). I have no problem with that. It does create one question in my mind, though.

For those of us who receive part of our income from the taxpayers, do we allow part time government interference?

Is there any possibility of justification for this?

I do not see any possible justification for separating parents from their children solely due to their economic status. Sometimes the abuse and neglect that stems from poverty may give us reason to incarcerate (edit: deleting something stoopid) someone, but not the poverty itself.

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. My comments were about how some argued for separating the mother from her children.

I have no doubt at all that government asistance would be required in that situation. If the government did not provide the required assistance, abuse and neglect would most likely follow. But since someone in the situation above would receive such assistance, I think we can safely assume that the increased risk of neglect and child abuse has been avoided.

If a parent is not attempting to support the children they make, they are ALREADY ABUSIVE AND NEGLECTFUL.

The fact that the state can step in and mitigate the damage is great. But it doesn't change the fact that the parents are abusive assholes.


Then you would object to me and my children. I could not have them as part of my life without the help of Canadian taxpayers.

If you intentionally made babies knowing that you were not going to be able to support them, then yes...I think you made a shitty, selfish choice.

However, you appear to be at least TRYING to support them. And, as I said earlier in the thread, I believe it's quite possible to recover from a shitty choice. It's quite possible to make a mistake but then deal with it in an honorable and adult manner.


The objective reality of my economic situation is that I can not provide all the basic necessities of my family without government assistance. When society deems that I am lazy, selfish or idiotic because of this is not objective at all.

Read my posts, and you'll find I've already responded to exactly this type of thing.


Addressing the issue of accountability to the taxpayer by the welafre recipient: this seems logical and just. If we look at the welfare situation as the government paying the mother to raise the kids properly, we could argue that the employer (the government) is within its rights to ensure that their employee (the parent) is doing her job properly (raising the children without abuse or neglect). I have no problem with that. It does create one question in my mind, though.

For those of us who receive part of our income from the taxpayers, do we allow part time government interference?

Yes.


I do not see any possible justification for separating parents from their children solely due to their economic status.

Then you're willfully blind.

Providing for your child is your first, most fundamental job as a parent. If you completely fail at that job, you're fired.


Sometimes the abuse and neglect that stems from poverty may give us reason to incarcerate or sterilise someone, but not the poverty itself.
Wait, so you're okay with STERILIZING people, but not with taking away their born children?

Wow.

Personally, I don't think we have the right to violate a person's body no matter how shitty a parent they are. Their body is theirs.

Their children, however, are independent beings, and have rights of their own. No parent has the unqualified right to do whatever they want with their child's body. If they hit their child, they can be punished for damaging their child. Starving their child, failing to provide shelter or clothing or other necessities for their child...these are just as much abuse as hitting, and can cause even more damage. I see no reason why the parent should not be held accountable for this.

If a parent is not attempting to support the children they make, they are ALREADY ABUSIVE AND NEGLECTFUL.

The fact that the state can step in and mitigate the damage is great. But it doesn't change the fact that the parents are abusive assholes.

Bottle, you are a scientist and I am a mere tradesperson, so I will bow to your scientific knowledge, but I thought a fact was something you observe (e.g. that man just hit his kids with a bat), while perceiving someone as an abusive asshole is a judgement (I think he is an abusive asshole because he did that).

It's kind of nitpicky, I know, but I am trying to understand why the fact of poverty is judged as immoral.

If you intentionally made babies knowing that you were not going to be able to support them, then yes...I think you made a shitty, selfish choice.

However, you appear to be at least TRYING to support them. And, as I said earlier in the thread, I believe it's quite possible to recover from a shitty choice. It's quite possible to make a mistake but then deal with it in an honorable and adult manner.

Thanks, I guess. I see my parenting choices differently.

Yes.

Would that only be for parents or would that be for all welfare recipients?

Then you're willfully blind.

Providing for your child is your first, most fundamental job as a parent. If you completely fail at that job, you're fired.

True. However, that does not necessarily relate to economic status. If I am poor, and I find a way to provide for my family that is legal, I do not think I should be separated from my children.

Wait, so you're okay with STERILIZING people, but not with taking away their born children?

Wow.

Personally, I don't think we have the right to violate a person's body no matter how shitty a parent they are. Their body is theirs.

That has to be the worst typo I have ever made. I had chosen to multiquote some other people upthread, one of whom put forth the idea of sterilisation. I had begun to respond to it and somehow I managed to insert that into my reply, without even grammatical errors, thanks to Murphy's law. I am definitely not a proponent of sterilisation. Thank you for pointing out my errors. You are completely correct in your support of the sovereignty of the human body.

Their children, however, are independent beings, and have rights of their own. No parent has the unqualified right to do whatever they want with their child's body. If they hit their child, they can be punished for damaging their child. Starving their child, failing to provide shelter or clothing or other necessities for their child...these are just as much abuse as hitting, and can cause even more damage. I see no reason why the parent should not be held accountable for this.

Nor do I.

Sounds like a good premise for a NationStates daily issue.:)

Bottle, you are a scientist and I am a mere tradesperson, so I will bow to your scientific knowledge, but I thought a fact was something you observe (e.g. that man just hit his kids with a bat), while perceiving someone as an abusive asshole is a judgement (I think he is an abusive asshole because he did that).

It's kind of nitpicky, I know, but I am trying to understand why the fact of poverty is judged as immoral.

The fact of hitting somebody is judged as abuse.

The fact of poverty does not necessarily constitute abuse. For instance, a friend of mine saw both his parents laid off at the same time (a plant in their home town went bust) and their family was plunged into poverty over night.

Were the parents abusive because they found themselves in poverty? Nope. You're making up that concept. If you want to argue about that, have fun, but I'm not interested.

What I'm saying is that if we observe a parent choosing to harm their child, we can judge their behavior to be abusive. If we observe a parent choosing to neglect their child, we can judge that behavior to be abusive.

If a parent hits their child with a bat, we can judge that to be abuse. If a parent choose to make baby after baby, knowing full well that they cannot support the children they already have, we can judge that to be--at the very least--neglect.


Thanks, I guess. I see my parenting choices differently.

I'm sure you do.


Would that only be for parents or would that be for all welfare recipients?

All parents in our society must tolerate a certain measure of government interference. A wealthy person cannot rape their children with impunity. You can't buy the right to beat your children with golf clubs.

However, the amount of interference you should expect from the government will increase the more you depend on the government to support your family. For instance, if the public is paying for your housing, you should be prepared to have the public get a say in where you are housed.


True. However, that does not necessarily relate to economic status. If I am poor, and I find a way to provide for my family that is legal, I do not think I should be separated from my children.

Nobody is arguing against that.


That has to be the worst typo I have ever made. I had chosen to multiquote some other people upthread, one of whom put forth the idea of sterilisation. I had begun to respond to it and somehow I managed to insert that into my reply, without even grammatical errors, thanks to Murphy's law. I am definitely not a proponent of sterilisation. Thank you for pointing out my errors. You are completely correct in your support of the sovereignty of the human body.

Phew!

That seemed totally out of character with the rest of your post.

I absolutely don't believe in punishing people for simply being poor. I know, first hand, that strong, capable, intelligent, well-meaning individuals can find themselves living in poverty. I also am aware that the entire idea of class mobility in the USA is pretty much bunk.

I believe that any person who chooses not to support their offspring is a failure as a parent, and their children should be taken away. Any person who chooses to abuse or neglect their children should have their children taken away.

Umm naaa they don't. In the UK, if you work more than 16 hours a week, you loose your beinfits. .

Untrue. The type of benefit you can claim changes, but you can still claim.

My little sister has worked full time since her boy was about 8 months, she received help right up until she no longer needed it.

On the last few pages I've seen debate over parents who allow their kids to starve and are suffering from frostbite because they don't have shoes in the winter. :confused: This is America (yes I know we're not all American, however, the video from the OP was in the US), people have food to eat and clothes to wear. The family in the OP had shelter and all of their basic neccesities. The problem was that they were unemployed. I have no objection to government incentives for the parents of poor families to obtain meaningful employment. But there is no justification for seperating children from their parents merely because they are unemployed.

On the last few pages I've seen debate over parents who allow their kids to starve and are suffering from frostbite because they don't have shoes in the winter. :confused: This is America (yes I know we're not all American, however, the video from the OP was in the US), people have food to eat and clothes to wear.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there are Americans who don't have enough food to eat. There are Americans who cannot afford clothing, shelter, essential health care, and many other fundamentals.

If you'd like to learn more, or begin helping some of your fellow Americans who are experiencing this type of poverty, I'd be happy to help you find charity organizations in your area.


The family in the OP had shelter and all of their basic neccesities. The problem was that they were unemployed.

The problem was that they INTENTIONALLY relied 100% on taxpayer money to provide those necessities. All their necessities are being provided by the taxpayers, and they explicitly stated that they intended this. They were not trying to work. They were not trying to support themselves.


I have no objection to government incentives for the parents of poor families to obtain meaningful employment. But there is no justification for seperating children from their parents merely because they are unemployed.
(Bold mine)

You lose 15 coolness points for repeating the same bullshit straw man irrelevancy that has been voiced by countless others already. Read the thread more carefully before posting.

On the last few pages I've seen debate over parents who allow their kids to starve and are suffering from frostbite because they don't have shoes in the winter. :confused: This is America (yes I know we're not all American, however, the video from the OP was in the US), people have food to eat and clothes to wear. The family in the OP had shelter and all of their basic neccesities. The problem was that they were unemployed. I have no objection to government incentives for the parents of poor families to obtain meaningful employment. But there is no justification for seperating children from their parents merely because they are unemployed.

It isn't that they are merely unemployed. it's that they have had 6 children with no means to support them aside from welfare and have shown absolutely no desire to ever get off of welfare. Rather than actually go out and get the means to support their children, they're content to sponge off of the system and the taxpayers.

1. Should a couple that cannot have children on their own (e.g. where one partner is infertile) be allowed to use a third party to obtain a child ?
2. Do these rules apply to adoption as well ?
3. Should homosexual/lesbian partners be allowed to have a child ? (see also 1 and 2)
4. Should members of a commune/harem ?
5. In case of accidental pregnancy, should the woman be forced to abort/give the child up for adoption if the man does not wish to sign the papers ?
6. Are single parents allowed ?


You really went right for the juglar on this. I think that all these questions should be resolved by the various states depending on what the voters in those states want. My own personal views are that the rules should apply for adoption as well, homosexuals' applications should be rejected. Parents within a commune should be acceptable (I am not sure what you mean by a commune but I am assuming you mean someone from a communal living arrangement like a farming commune or what in Israel is referred to as a "kibbutz" although the "/harem" part makes me think you may be referring to something else. As far as accidental pregnancy, yes I think she should be forced to abort or put the kid up for adoption. I think that single parents should be allowed if it is a relative or family friend adopting an accidentally born kid or if the single parent is a lady who has used her dead husband's sperm that was stored in a cryrogenic facility. Also, I think that it is imortant for all denied applicants to have the right to appeal to a judge or magistrate who shall have fairly broad equitable powers to determine if the denied applicants would make good parents.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there are Americans who don't have enough food to eat. There are Americans who cannot afford clothing, shelter, essential health care, and many other fundamentals.

If you'd like to learn more, or begin helping some of your fellow Americans who are experiencing this type of poverty, I'd be happy to help you find charity organizations in your area.

I already contribute to numerous such organizations. And that's the point. We are a developed nation, we have charities and shelters for the homeless and food stamps for the dangerously impoverished, etc. Essential health care is theoretically available, although we all know that Medicaid is actually a crippled and under-funded bureaucracy (which is one among many reasons I support universal health care--it would make certain that priority is given to patients most in need of care, who generally are the poor). But even if medical care isn't always available, it's comparatively rare for people to die of poverty. We are not a third-world country.


The problem was that they INTENTIONALLY relied 100% on taxpayer money to provide those necessities. All their necessities are being provided by the taxpayers, and they explicitly stated that they intended this. They were not trying to work. They were not trying to support themselves.

As several others have pointed out, the fact that it is possible to abuse a system does not mean that the system should be scrapped. Yes, they are morally reprehensible, but undeserving of welfare? Or worse, worthy of being thrown in jail?




You lose 15 coolness points for repeating the same bullshit straw man irrelevancy that has been voiced by countless others already. Read the thread more carefully before posting.

It's very difficult to argue on forums such as these without using "straw men" tactics because I have no idea what position each and every one of you guys has on this issue. I only know the vague positions of each side. I have been following this thread loosely since its posting, and I don't think I should be expected to go back and read twenty pages of debate each time I post in the thread. Rather than just calling BS, would you care to refute my argument?

I already do. And that's the point. We are a developed nation, we have shelters for the homeless and food stamps for the dangerously impoverished, etc.

Wait, so nobody lives in poverty, yet we have countless organizations and services aimed at helping those who live in poverty?


Essential health care is theoretically available, although we all know that Medicaid is actually a crippled and under-funded bureaucracy (which is one among many reasons I support universal health care--it would make certain that priority is given to patients most in need of care, who generally are the poor). But even if medical care isn't always available, it's comparatively rare for people to die of poverty. We are not a third-world country.

"Comparatively rare" =/= never happens.

There are people in the US without enough food. Without shelter. There are children who die of preventable disease, of malnutrition, of exposure, of countless other preventable ailments.

You made a mistake claiming this stuff doesn't exist in the USA. That's okay, everybody makes mistakes.


As several others have pointed out, the fact that it is possible to abuse a system does not mean that the system should be scrapped.
Again, you're making up arguments that nobody here is advocating.

Please quote where I suggested that "the system should be scrapped."


Yes, they are morally reprehensible, but undeserving of welfare?

Absolutely. People who intentionally abuse the system should not be allowed to continue doing so. This doesn't remotely equate to "scrapping the system" itself.


Or worse, worthy of being thrown in jail?

Absolutely. Parents who abuse or neglect their children should be put in prison.


It's very difficult to argue on forums such as these without using "straw men" tactics because I have no idea what position each and every one of you guys has on this issue.

You could try reading the thread.


I only know the vague positions of each side. I have been following this thread loosely since its posting, and I don't think I should be expected to go back and read twenty pages of debate each time I post in the thread. Rather than just calling BS, would you care to refute my argument?
My entire point is that "your argument" is an argument against something nobody has said or advocated.

You said, "But there is no justification for seperating children from their parents merely because they are unemployed."

Nobody is advocating that. You're arguing against nobody about nothing.

1. Should a couple that cannot have children on their own (e.g. where one partner is infertile) be allowed to use a third party to obtain a child ?
2. Do these rules apply to adoption as well ?
3. Should homosexual/lesbian partners be allowed to have a child ? (see also 1 and 2)
4. Should members of a commune/harem ?
5. In case of accidental pregnancy, should the woman be forced to abort/give the child up for adoption if the man does not wish to sign the papers ?
6. Are single parents allowed ?

Since the whole "parent license" idea was mine, I think I'll step in here. While I generally agree with the criteria listed previously in the thread, I would change it to any man, woman, couple, or group seeking to raise children, and lower the age to 18, or 16 if a dependent living in a parent or guardian's household. These restrictions would apply to adoption as well (and essentially do, in fact), with even more stringent requirements for one to become a foster parent (such as child development classes and the like). Abortion would never be required; however, if neither biological parent has a parenting license, the child would be given up for adoption.

The way I see it, if a pair of people decide to bring a child into the world without the means to support it, I see that as child neglect, a crime punishable by law, and I think it should be punished. If you cannot afford to feed your child and put clothes on your child's back and a roof over his/her head, you are being neglectful and abusive. If you need temporary governmental aid to meet those goals, than so be it. But that aid had damn well better be temporary, because the government has other things to do with its money that can't be fixed with something called "thinking ahead" and "responsibility."

I was going to try to respond to each and every sentence you posted, but I realized I didn't have to.

You said, "But there is no justification for seperating children from their parents merely because they are unemployed."

Nobody is advocating that. You're arguing against nobody about nothing.

Not too long ago (this was a few pages ago, maybe you weren't a part of this) people were saying that the parents in the OP should not be allowed to continue caring for their kids. Why? Because they were unemployed. In the U.S. it's generally taken for granted that "unemployed" means "on welfare", I didn't think I needed to add that in. However, because of the objection, I will revise my previous statemtent:

"There is no sufficient justification for seperating children from the parents merely because their lifestyle is dependent on welfare."

I now expect you to make an attempt to refute this, since you have gone to such lengths to evade its earlier incarnation.

EDIT: Actually you don't have to, I finally made it through to the end of your debate with Gift-of-god. I agreed with everything in that last post except one. There is no way that any government can detirmine whether a parent is actually actively seeking work, or not. Nor is it a good idea for them to try to draw a boundary. The idea that parents should not be allowed to continue caring for their children because they do not appear to be actively seeking employment (and maybe they aren't, but it's not the government's call). As I tried to establish earlier, I am not talking about people starving death on reservations; I am talking about people such as those in the OP.

Jail sounds an awful lot like forcible prevention.

Not at all. A person could certainly have (as in, give birth to) that child. But when they couldn't support that it, that would clearly be neglect and that child would be better off being placed with responsible parents who will actually see to the child's needs.

I was going to try to respond to each and every sentence you posted, but I realized I didn't have to.



Not too long ago (this was a few pages ago, maybe you weren't a part of this) people were saying that the parents in the OP should not be allowed to continue caring for their kids. Why? Because they were unemployed. In the U.S. it's generally taken for granted that "unemployed" means "on welfare", I didn't think I needed to add that in. However, because of the objection, I will revise my previous statemtent:

"There is no sufficient justification for seperating children from the parents merely because their lifestyle is dependent on welfare."

I now expect you to make an attempt to refute this, since you have gone to such lengths to evade its earlier incarnation.

Parents who make the decision to do the whole pregnancy thing while on welfare should not be allowed to be in the presence of their children lest we allow them to instill their selfish morals upon the children. This is not the 1840s when abortions were uberdangerous. Childbirth is 100% avoidable. People must live with the consequences of their actions.

Also, addicts that give birth to crack babies need at least life in prison for doing that to a poor little innocent baby. Pregnancy must be a very serious thing. It should not be entered into unless mom and dad to be are ready this includes financial health as well as mom's decision to not put dangerous substances into her body for fun at the expense of baby.

I would argue that separating children from their parents because the parents decide to have more children than society deems that they can afford, is wrong.

It has nothing to do with what "society deems that they can afford." It has to do with what they can afford, plain and simple. Children need food, clothing, shelter, care, etc. If the parents do not provide that for them, the parents are neglectful. Children are better off away from parents who abuse or neglect them.

Note that I'm not talking about parents who end up having a hard time and need a little help. I'm talking about people who know for a fact that they do not have the means to take care of children, but still choose to have them.

I believe that it was Peepelonia who commented that requiring financial stability of prospective parents would make poor people extinct. This is bizarre. First off, our economy should be structured to eliminate poverty. Getting rid of poverty is a good thing. There is nothing genocidal against the poor race being proposed here. I used to be broke but I made the broke me extinct which was great.

People will still be poor because people of dumb decisions. That is why most poor people are poor

If a parent hits their child with a bat, we can judge that to be abuse. If a parent choose to make baby after baby, knowing full well that they cannot support the children they already have, we can judge that to be--at the very least--neglect.

We can judge it to be neglect. But it is not a fact that it is neglect.

All parents in our society must tolerate a certain measure of government interference. A wealthy person cannot rape their children with impunity. You can't buy the right to beat your children with golf clubs.

However, the amount of interference you should expect from the government will increase the more you depend on the government to support your family. For instance, if the public is paying for your housing, you should be prepared to have the public get a say in where you are housed.

Then 82% of Canadian families (http://www.nationalchildbenefit.ca/ncb/NCB-2003/backgrounder_e.html)should be under the microscope.

The NCB Supplement is paid in addition to the CCTB base benefit, a tax-free monthly payment made to more than 82 percent of Canadian families to help them with the cost of raising children under age 18. Between July 2001 and June 2002, $5.2 billion in benefits were paid to approximately 3.2 million families with 5.8 million children.

Nobody is arguing against that.

Actually, all these people advocated separating the children from their mother, or worse, for various reasons, none of which are illegal:

Nobody has the right to have children they cannot support. Anyone who intentionally does so is worthy of nothing but contempt and should most likely have the child immediately removed from their custody.

To me, this advocates forcible separation of families due to what the mother is doing: providing for her children using only welfare, which is entirely legal.

You can't force them not to have kids, but you could always take them and put them in foster care, so they don't pick up their parents slacker ways. A bit cruel perhaps but better for everyone in the long run.

So does this.

Because the taxpayers have to pay to support their children. I would be in favor of limiting the ammount of kids you can have on welfare, but I don't see how to enforce it. I don't want kids to starve, and I recognize that forcible sterilization is not the answer. Maybe the parents who abuse their right to have kids while on welfare should serve short prison sentences while their kids are cared for in foster homes. I just don't know.

And this. Though the motive here appears to be for having more kids while on welfare.

And in this case, I would assume it's not necessarily the children who are being abused, but society which provides the welfare for the parents.
I would opt to take the children away from them and let somebody adopt them.

This post advocates separating this particular family, but does not specify why.

Give 'em ASBO's. What they're doing is the very definition of antisocial behaviour, acting selfishly to the detriment of everyone else.

This advocates forcibly medicating the parents, for 'antisocial behaviour'.

It's easy. Take the kids away from the parents. No matter where they end up, it will be better than where they were. Put the parents to work. If they can become self-sufficient enough to get the kids back, then let them.

To me, this advocates forcible separation of families based on some nebulous claim of neglect.

Quite simply, if she has children already, and neither parent has a job, she ought to have been sufficiently responsible so as to avoid having further children until such a point as she could sustain them.

However, given that the average citizen lacks any sense of social or personal responsibility, I would suggest her welfare be withdrawn, she imprisoned, and the children taken into care.

This one seems to advocate separation fo the family and incarceration of the parent for having more children.

No they should force the parents to get jobs so they can pay for the children they have a right to have.

Forced labour. The motive is unspecified.

I think that if you're on government assistance, and you have another child during the time you're on the dole, the government should, in the case of women, inject them with DepoProvera (or no aid), and in the case of men, a similar male contraceptive (if there isn't one, then a vasectomy).

If you can't whittle the fathers down to a single man, say, you think it was one of 3 or 4 men, then all of the men get a vasectomy against their will, and they all have to pay child support.

RO advocates forcible sterilisation. I am unsurprised. This does not even deserve a response.

Please note that I do not think that everyone in this thread is arguing that the family should be separated due solely to poverty. But it is clear that some have argued that the family should be separated because the mother is on welfare and/or wishing to have more children while on welfare. To me, that is an unwarranted punishment.

I believe that any person who chooses not to support their offspring is a failure as a parent, and their children should be taken away. Any person who chooses to abuse or neglect their children should have their children taken away.

I agree with you. I think our debate centres on what we consider to be abuse.

I do not think that using welfare as the sole means of supporting your family is abusing or failing your children. You disagree with that.

Parents who make the decision to do the whole pregnancy thing while on welfare should not be allowed to be in the presence of their children lest we allow them to instill their selfish morals upon the children.

Danger zone! Morals and government don't mix. The government's job is to ensure that interaction between individuals is fair--i.e. that one party does not violate the rights of the other. Morals are based on individual values, and therefore should not be mandated by the government.

This is not the 1840s when abortions were uberdangerous. Childbirth is 100% avoidable. People must live with the consequences of their actions.

I'm very pro-choice. But I don't think I would ever want to have an abortion. It is my personal belief that every fetal child is worth bringing into this world, and that unless a pregnancy poses a danger it should be allowed to come to term. Of course, if an issue like that came up, it wouldn't be my decision since I'm male. But there are many others who feel the same, and they would certainly not want the government forcing them to have an abortion to save taxpayer money.

We can judge it to be neglect. But it is not a fact that it is neglect.

Just like we can judge it to be abuse if somebody hits their kid with a bat, but it is not a fact that it is abuse.

Seriously, what is your point?



Then 82% of Canadian families (http://www.nationalchildbenefit.ca/ncb/NCB-2003/backgrounder_e.html)should be under the microscope.

Ok.


Actually, all these people advocated separating the children from their mother, or worse, for various reasons, none of which are illegal:

READ MY POSTS BEFORE REPLYING.

You quoted me saying, "Nobody is arguing against that."

Now, before you reply, identify what "that" refers to.


To me, this advocates forcible separation of families due to what the mother is doing: providing for her children using only welfare, which is entirely legal.

The mother is not providing for the children at all. Not a single dime. The taxpayers are providing for her children.


So does this.

Again, examples of people saying that parents who CHOOSE NOT TO SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN should not be permitted to continue with their neglectful behavior at the expense of the kids.

Thanks for making my point for me.

And this. Though the motive here appears to be for having more kids while on welfare.

Yep, and another example.

While I really appreciate you making my point for me over and over, I'm kind of wondering why you're doing it.


To me, this advocates forcible separation of families based on some nebulous claim of neglect.

Yep, sure is "nebulous" to say, "A parent who intentionally produces children with absolutely no intention of supporting them is neglecting their responsibilities."

*snipped more for length*
And on and on.

I don't know how many different ways I can possibly re-state my point, so I'm pretty much going to give up at this point. I'm bored with saying the same thing to you over and over, and having you choose to respond to some other random point, or claiming that I'm arguing things that I very clearly am not arguing.


Please note that I do not think that everyone in this thread is arguing that the family should be separated due solely to poverty. But it is clear that some have argued that the family should be separated because the mother is on welfare and/or wishing to have more children while on welfare. To me, that is an unwarranted punishment.

And again with the dishonest, sloppy mis-characterization.

Knock it off. Seriously. It's boring. It's tired. It's lame.

People are arguing that the family should be separated because the parents are intentionally producing children that they choose not to support in any way. Your decision to equate this with all parents on welfare is a disgusting and insulting slap to all the hard-working families who require welfare assistance.


I agree with you. I think our debate centres on what we consider to be abuse.

I do not think that using welfare as the sole means of supporting your family is abusing or failing your children. You disagree with that.
(Bold mine) And there you go again.

Given the number of times I have corrected you, and others, I am forced to conclude that you are intentionally lying with the bolded portion here. Kindly knock it off.

It has nothing to do with what "society deems that they can afford." It has to do with what they can afford, plain and simple. Children need food, clothing, shelter, care, etc. If the parents do not provide that for them, the parents are neglectful. Children are better off away from parents who abuse or neglect them.

Oooh, but this is far too "nebulous" a concept for us to use! We can't use our "judgment" of neglect, when there's no "fact" of neglect!

Just like we can judge it to be abuse if somebody hits their kid with a bat, but it is not a fact that it is abuse.

Seriously, what is your point?



Ok.


READ MY POSTS BEFORE REPLYING.

You quoted me saying, "Nobody is arguing against that."

Now, before you reply, identify what "that" refers to.


The mother is not providing for the children at all. Not a single dime. The taxpayers are providing for her children.


Again, examples of people saying that parents who CHOOSE NOT TO SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN should not be permitted to continue with their neglectful behavior at the expense of the kids.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Yep, and another example.

While I really appreciate you making my point for me over and over, I'm kind of wondering why you're doing it.


Yep, sure is "nebulous" to say, "A parent who intentionally produces children with absolutely no intention of supporting them is neglecting their responsibilities."


And on and on.

I don't know how many different ways I can possibly re-state my point, so I'm pretty much going to give up at this point. I'm bored with saying the same thing to you over and over, and having you choose to respond to some other random point, or claiming that I'm arguing things that I very clearly am not arguing.


And again with the dishonest, sloppy mis-characterization.

Knock it off. Seriously. It's boring. It's tired. It's lame.

People are arguing that the family should be separated because the parents are intentionally producing children that they choose not to support in any way. Your decision to equate this with all parents on welfare is a disgusting and insulting slap to all the hard-working families who require welfare assistance.


(Bold mine) And there you go again.

Given the number of times I have corrected you, and others, I am forced to conclude that you are intentionally lying with the bolded portion here. Kindly knock it off.

Now I see the problem. The problem is that, it's not just about money. You argue that the kids are being payed for entirely by taxpayer money. Therefore, it makes no difference whether the children are being cared for by a parent, or by the government. What you don't seem to be getting is that children need to have a parent, to form the kinds of emotional relationships they will need as they grow up. By seperating the parent from child, we are contributing to the child's neglect, by denying it the emotional support it requires.

On the last few pages I've seen debate over parents who allow their kids to starve and are suffering from frostbite because they don't have shoes in the winter. :confused: This is America (yes I know we're not all American, however, the video from the OP was in the US), people have food to eat and clothes to wear. The family in the OP had shelter and all of their basic neccesities. The problem was that they were unemployed. I have no objection to government incentives for the parents of poor families to obtain meaningful employment. But there is no justification for seperating children from their parents merely because they are unemployed.

There is when those parents are irresponsible enough to have baby after baby and make no effort to be employed.

Not too long ago (this was a few pages ago, maybe you weren't a part of this) people were saying that the parents in the OP should not be allowed to continue caring for their kids. Why? Because they were unemployed.

Incorrect. Nobody argued anything remotely like that. The argument was that these parents should have their children taken away because they are irresponsible and are making no effort whatsoever to provide for their children, instead expecting others to do it.

One can be unemployed and thus unable to support one's children alone by accident. It happens to people all the time. However, responsible people go out and try to better that situation - to find a job and reduce the level to which they need to rely on government aid. Responsible people would not bring more children into this world when they cannot even provide for the ones they have.

It is the incredible level of irresponsibility here that points to these parents being incompetent, and their children therefore being better off elsewhere.

"There is no sufficient justification for seperating children from the parents merely because their lifestyle is dependent on welfare."

Once again, no one is arguing this. First of all, no one is suggesting that. Many very good parents have had to rely on welfare for a period of time for any number of reasons.

There is a difference between being currently dependent on welfare and making no attempt whatsoever to reduce that dependence. There is a difference between finding yourself in need of welfare to take care of your children and bringing more children into the world when you are already dependent upon it.

EDIT: Actually you don't have to, I finally made it through to the end of your debate with Gift-of-god. I agreed with everything in that last post except one. There is no way that any government can detirmine whether a parent is actually actively seeking work, or not. Nor is it a good idea for them to try to draw a boundary. The idea that parents should not be allowed to continue caring for their children because they do not appear to be actively seeking employment (and maybe they aren't, but it's not the government's call). As I tried to establish earlier, I am not talking about people starving death on reservations; I am talking about people such as those in the OP.

Actually, it is possible to find out whether or not someone is actively seeking work. It would be even more possible if welfare included work training and placement programs (which I think it should).

A parent who is capable of work and is not even trying to seek employment and is dependent upon welfare is not even trying to provide for his/her children. That person is thus an incompetent and neglectful parent.


To me, this advocates forcible separation of families due to what the mother is doing: providing for her children using only welfare, which is entirely legal.

Welfare is not meant to be a person's lifetime support. It is meant to help someone get back on their feet - to be a fall-back until they can become self-sufficient. A person who is not even trying to be self-sufficient should not receive welfare. And since this means that the woman cannot provide for her children, they would have to be placed elsewhere.

The extreme incompetence and irresponsibility of this woman makes leaving children with her a dangerous proposition. I'd rather see them put up for adoption immediately - as infants. This way, they will most likely be adopted and will be well taken care of by their parents - something that isn't going to happen in their current situation.

Please note that I do not think that everyone in this thread is arguing that the family should be separated due solely to poverty. But it is clear that some have argued that the family should be separated because the mother is on welfare and/or wishing to have more children while on welfare. To me, that is an unwarranted punishment.

You don't think that parents should be expected to take care of their children? You don't think that parents should be expected to show some level of personal responsibility? You think it is perfectly ok for parents to intentionally bring children into this world when they have no means of supporting them and then expect others to do it for them?

I do not think that using welfare as the sole means of supporting your family is abusing or failing your children. You disagree with that.

You don't think parents should make some effort at supporting their children? Why not?

Now I see the problem. The problem is that, it's not just about money. You argue that the kids are being payed for entirely by taxpayer money. Therefore, it makes no difference whether the children are being cared for by a parent, or by the government. What you don't seem to be getting is that children need to have a parent, to form the kinds of emotional relationships they will need as they grow up. By seperating the parent from child, we are contributing to the child's neglect, by denying it the emotional support it requires.
Hooray! Yet another point I've already addressed!

Yes, parents should provide both material and (for lack of a better word) emotional support.

No, biological parents are not the only parents who can do this. Separating a child from abusive or neglectful biological parents is often the only way to ensure good emotional support for the child. A parent can succeed at one of these duties, while failing at the other. (How many of us know of rich kids with totally absentee parents? These parents do great at providing materially for their kids, but completely fail when it comes to the hands-on parenting that their children also require.)

But if you'd like to continue arguing that a child must remain with their biological parents in order to "form the kinds of emotional relationships they will need as they grow up," then my adopted cousins will be happy to chime in and tell you to go fuck yourself. :D

Incorrect. Nobody argued anything remotely like that. The argument was that these parents should have their children taken away because they are irresponsible and are making no effort whatsoever to provide for their children, instead expecting others to do it.

Right. It makes much more sense to tear them away from the family that loves them, punishing the children for the mistake of the parents, and then place them in foster care. You know...paying someone to provide for the children.

Boy, that'll sure fix things. Meanwhile, maybe the kids can be abused in foster care. Much better than being with loving, yet deadbeat parents.

You fucking people amaze me.

Hooray! Yet another point I've already addressed!

Yes, parents should provide both material and (for lack of a better word) emotional support.

No, biological parents are not the only parents who can do this. Separating a child from abusive or neglectful biological parents is often the only way to ensure good emotional support for the child. A parent can succeed at one of these duties, while failing at the other. (How many of us know of rich kids with totally absentee parents? These parents do great at providing materially for their kids, but completely fail when it comes to the hands-on parenting that their children also require.)

Yet we don't snatch rich kids away from their absent parents. Or even propose it.

You have deemed the parents as abusive, but no, that doesn't necessarily translate. You disagree with their total reliance on the system. Fine. That's one thing. Separate from that thing is whether or not they are actually abusive parents who should lose their children. Irresponsible? No one is denying that? Abusive? We don't actually know that, and we CAN NOT assume so because they are both on welfare.

So you are willing to propose ripping a family apart because in your opinion, being lazy and poor is inherently abusive. Sorry, I'm not that cavalier with other people's lives.

Right. It makes much more sense to tear them away from the family that loves them, punishing the children for the mistake of the parents, and then place them in foster care.

Parents who beat their children often love them, as well. Are you suggesting that we should leave children in abusive homes, as long as their parents love them?

People seriously seem to think that love is all it takes to be a good parent. Bullshit. Love is one very important part of parenting, but it's not the only thing you need. All the love in the world means fuckall if you choose to beat your kids, or choose not to support them, or choose to be a lousy parent in any of a million other ways.


You know...paying someone to provide for the children.
Are you suggesting that all foster families rely exclusively on government aid?


Boy, that'll sure fix things. Meanwhile, maybe the kids can be abused in foster care. Much better than being with loving, yet deadbeat parents.

And now you're suggesting all foster parents are abusive?

Wow. Talk about insulting.


You fucking people amaze me.
The feeling is quite mutual, I assure you.

Right. It makes much more sense to tear them away from the family that loves them, punishing the children for the mistake of the parents, and then place them in foster care. You know...paying someone to provide for the children.

Boy, that'll sure fix things. Meanwhile, maybe the kids can be abused in foster care. Much better than being with loving, yet deadbeat parents.

You fucking people amaze me.

Hence the reason I've restricted my comments about taking the children to those they have just had. The foster care system should be avoided if at all possible. I'd rather see these children placed in an adoptive home - which is much more likely if it is done while they are infants.

The other children should be taken away if they are actively neglected, which would most likely happen if they didn't have society to rely on.

Meanwhile, I fail to see how a parent who makes no effort whatsoever to take care of her children, while bringing more children she cannot support into the world, could be termed "loving". That kind of "love" is more like what a child feels for toys than what a truly loving parent feels.

Yet we don't snatch rich kids away from their absent parents. Or even propose it.

I do. Plenty of other people around here have, too.

There have been lots of discussions about spoiled or neglected kids, who've got parents who throw money at them but fail to do any parenting. I'm sure if you start a thread about it you'll see plenty of examples.


You have deemed the parents as abusive, but no, that doesn't necessarily translate. You disagree with their total reliance on the system. Fine. That's one thing. Separate from that thing is whether or not they are actually abusive parents who should lose their children. Irresponsible? No one is denying that? Abusive? We don't actually know that, and we CAN NOT assume so because they are both on welfare.

It is completely beyond question that these parents are intentionally choosing not to provide for their family. The only thing preventing their behavior from being gross physical neglect is that the government is already involved (i.e. paying for absolutely everything).

Since the government is already paying for everything those children have, and since the parents made the conscious decision to have it that way, I see no reason why the government shouldn't get a say in where the children live. If the parents don't like that, they are free to get jobs and stop relying on the government to provide 100% of their family income. Nobody is forcing them to be lazy, selfish jackasses.


So you are willing to propose ripping a family apart because in your opinion, being lazy and poor is inherently abusive.

It's really amazing how so many people can be endlessly entertained by the same lie.

I guess maybe it's like bouncing a tennis ball against a wall or something, huh?


Sorry, I'm not that cavalier with other people's lives.
You're far more so, if you are totally comfortable with children being abused and neglected as long as their parents love them. Myself, I simply can't be comfortable with that. Child abuse and child neglect are serious to me because I recognize that children are actual people, not just playthings and pets for their parents to use however they want.

If you find my posts boring, you are free to ignore them, Bottle.

My point is this: When you say that she is abusing her children by not working for the money she uses to provide for them, you are expressing a judgement or an evaluation, not a fact. I was trying to separate the fact of her actions from the judgement of her actions. In a previous post, you seemed to confuse the two. I thought it was odd that a scientist would confuse the two.

As for all those quotes, they were in reply to this:

If I am poor, and I find a way to provide for my family that is legal, I do not think I should be separated from my children.

Nobody is arguing against that

So you believe that everyone I listed is claiming that the children should be separated from their parents solely because she chose to have more children while on welfare, instead of what I claimed? That is an interesting interpretation, but I will not argue interpretations, so I will conced this point. You are correct. I am wrong.

It is still an unwarranted punishment.

You claim I am proving your point. You also claim I am mischaracterising it. Obviously I am a liar or a moron (observations suggest the latter). Do this poor fool a favour and tell me: why do you think this woman deserves to have her children removed from her custody? And if that is the wrong question, please explain which point I mischaracterised and what your point actually was.

Or just ignore me.

You're far more so. You are totally comfortable with children being abused and neglected, as long as their parents love them. Myself, I simply can't be comfortable with that. Child abuse and child neglect are serious to me because I recognize that children are actual people, not just playthings and pets for their parents to use however they want.

So how far up your ass are you pulling this shit from anyway, Bottle? 'Abuse'? 'Neglect'? Yeah - right.

Hence the reason I've restricted my comments about taking the children to those they have just had. The foster care system should be avoided if at all possible. I can emphatically agree on that. *shudders*

But still. Taking 'just these children'? I still disagree. It is still tantamount to saying that poverty (willing or otherwise...no idea if they are not looking for work, etc) is abusive.

I'd rather see these children placed in an adoptive home - which is much more likely if it is done while they are infants. That's true. But stealing someone's kids based on their socio-economic status? Hell no.

The other children should be taken away if they are actively neglected, which would most likely happen if they didn't have society to rely on. Luckily, they aren't living in a society where that is the case. And the sad thing is...no one would give a flying shit about their welfare if they WERE living in a society they couldn't rely on.
Meanwhile, I fail to see how a parent who makes no effort whatsoever to take care of her children, while bringing more children she cannot support into the world, could be termed "loving". Sorry...do you guys have some information I'm lacking? Perhaps about their actual situation in terms of looking for work, etc?

And it's not that hard Dem. Not working does not mean not loving. I honestly can't fathom how you can actually see it like that.

This, all of this, stems from taxpayer outrage. Flowing from that is a way to justify taking those kids. The ONLY way to do that is to make it so that the parents' situation is inherently abusive.

You're far more so, if you are totally comfortable with children being abused and neglected as long as their parents love them. Myself, I simply can't be comfortable with that. Child abuse and child neglect are serious to me because I recognize that children are actual people, not just playthings and pets for their parents to use however they want.

Oh spare me. You have just deemed their socio-economic status as INHERENTLY ABUSIVE. While pretending earlier that this isn't actually what you support. Stop contradicting yourself. You have absolutely no information about these parents other than their economic status. Yet you still cry 'ABUSE!'.

So for you, their economic status = abuse.

Nice to see your prejudices shining through here. Exactly at what economic point would they stop being 'abusive'? When they could fully support their children at 'x' level? Or when they could do it 25%? 50%? Where along the line exactly does Bottle deem a family non-abusive?

If you find my posts boring, you are free to ignore them, Bottle.

My point is this: When you say that she is abusing her children by not working for the money she uses to provide for them, you are expressing a judgement or an evaluation, not a fact.

So. What.

Yes, we make judgments based on the facts at hand.

When a child is intentionally and repeatedly hit with a bat by their parent, we usually judge that to be abuse.

I ask you again: What is your point with this "judgment" versus "fact" thing?


I was trying to separate the fact of her actions from the judgement of her actions. In a previous post, you seemed to confuse the two. I thought it was odd that a scientist would confuse the two.

I didn't. I am quite clear. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, in several posts. I know you aren't stupid, so stop playing at it.


So you believe that everyone I listed is claiming that the children should be separated from their parents solely because she chose to have more children while on welfare, instead of what I claimed?

Nope. Fail AGAIN.

You've never been this rude on past threads. What's going on? Why are you choosing to either ignore or misrepresent what I'm saying, over and over and over? It's really kind of pathetic at this point, which is not what I've come to expect from you.


You claim I am proving your point. You also claim I am mischaracterising it. Obviously I am a liar or a moron (observations suggest the latter).

I don't think you're a moron, so the only conclusion I can come to is that you are doing this on purpose.


Do this poor fool a favour and tell me: why do you think this woman deserves to have her children removed from her custody? And if that is the wrong question, please explain which point I mischaracterised and what your point actually was.

She is making the conscious, calculated decision to not even attempt to support her family, while also making the conscious, calculated decision to increase her family size. She is choosing not to even attempt to fulfill one of the two roles of a parent (material and 'emotional' support).

Basically, she has already decided that she is not parent to these children. Taking them away would simply be an acknowledgment of her abdication of that role.

I AM NOT saying she deserves to have her children taken away because she is poor.

I AM NOT saying she deserve to have her children taken away because she is on welfare.

I AM NOT saying she deserves to have her children taken away because she is having more children while on welfare.

Oh spare me. You have just deemed their socio-economic status as INHERENTLY ABUSIVE.

100% fail.

Read my posts.


While pretending earlier that this isn't actually what you support. Stop contradicting yourself. You have absolutely no information about these parents other than their economic status. Yet you still cry 'ABUSE!'.

Lie. I have information beyond their economic status.

I have also--clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly--emphasized that I don't believe economic status alone is reason for taking children away from their parents. I have clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly emphasized that I don't think it is wrong for people to use welfare, and that there are plenty of good, hard-working people who find themselves in need of welfare, or who find themselves living in poverty.


So for you, their economic status = abuse.

Lie. Read more carefully. I have clarified this countless times now. It is very dishonest to continue harping on it.


Nice to see your prejudices shining through here. Exactly at what economic point would they stop being 'abusive'? When they could fully support their children at 'x' level? Or when they could do it 25%? 50%? Where along the line exactly does Bottle deem a family non-abusive?
It's really amazing to see what this thread is doing to some otherwise-cool posters.

I really suggest you cool down a bit, re-read what I've posted, and see if maybe you can't figure out why you're off base about my stance.

Parents who beat their children often love them, as well. Are you suggesting that we should leave children in abusive homes, as long as their parents love them? Oh, now they beat their kids? Oh wait...no, that's not what you're saying. You are, once again, saying that their economic status is the same as abuse. SAVE THE CHILDREN FROM THEIR ABUSE!!!!

People seriously seem to think that love is all it takes to be a good parent. Bullshit. Love is one very important part of parenting, but it's not the only thing you need. All the love in the world means fuckall if you choose to beat your kids, or choose not to support them, or choose to be a lousy parent in any of a million other ways. All the love in the world means a hell of a lot when those kids are being supported anyway. You just think they shouldn't be supported. That's fine. Good for you. But THEY ARE. And unless they are being actually beaten, then there is absolutely no reason TO take them.

Are you suggesting that all foster families rely exclusively on government aid? Foster parents are paid to care for children. Pretty comparable to these parents.


And now you're suggesting all foster parents are abusive?

Wow. Talk about insulting. Quid pro quo. You're throwing around so much bullshit here, I thought I'd fling some too. Boy, it's sure fun!


The feeling is quite mutual, I assure you. Look at me! All indignant! Appease me by taking children away from their families when I deem it necessary!

Hooray! Yet another point I've already addressed!

Yes, parents should provide both material and (for lack of a better word) emotional support.

No, biological parents are not the only parents who can do this. Separating a child from abusive or neglectful biological parents is often the only way to ensure good emotional support for the child. A parent can succeed at one of these duties, while failing at the other. (How many of us know of rich kids with totally absentee parents? These parents do great at providing materially for their kids, but completely fail when it comes to the hands-on parenting that their children also require.)

But if you'd like to continue arguing that a child must remain with their biological parents in order to "form the kinds of emotional relationships they will need as they grow up," then my adopted cousins will be happy to chime in and tell you to go fuck yourself. :D

The actual odds of the child being adopted depend on circumstances, but the fact is most children placed in adoption will not be adopted, and many will become homeless. Also, the swearing is pathetic. The smiley doesn't help. Don't tell other people to "cool it" until you are able to do the same.

I'll wait and read the rest of the posts that have been made in thread before I respond further.

So. What.

Yes, we make judgments based on the facts at hand.

When a child is intentionally and repeatedly hit with a bat by their parent, we usually judge that to be abuse. Oh stop it. No need to attempt to twist the situation into what it is NOT, and what it is not even COMPARABLE to.

What facts do you have, by the way? Mostly you're filling in gaps here. POOR AND ON WELFARE = CHILD ABUSE. Yeah, we got that. Put it on a T-shirt.

It's really amazing to see what this thread is doing to some otherwise-cool posters.
Yeah, I feel the same way. Alright, I'll go back in a bit and read your posts. I'm not holding my breath that you've somehow redeemed your position however somewhere that I missed.

So how far up your ass are you pulling this shit from anyway, Bottle? 'Abuse'? 'Neglect'? Yeah - right.

You don't think a parent has a responsibility to provide for his/her children?

How interesting.


But still. Taking 'just these children'? I still disagree. It is still tantamount to saying that poverty (willing or otherwise...no idea if they are not looking for work, etc) is abusive.

No, it isn't. It is tantamount to saying that a parent who makes no effort to take care of children is neglectful at the least, abusive at the worst. If others weren't doing it for her, this woman's children would have no shelter, no clothing, and no food. Would that not be neglect?

That's true. But stealing someone's kids based on their socio-economic status? Hell no.

Of course not. Taking them away from irresponsible parents making no effort whatsoever to see to their needs, on the other hand? Hell yes.

Luckily, they aren't living in a society where that is the case. And the sad thing is...no one would give a flying shit about their welfare if they WERE living in a society they couldn't rely on.

That's the problem. They shouldn't be able to rely on society to do everything for them. They grow up - be fucking adults - and make some attempt to provide for themselves and their family.

I fully advocate cutting off all welfare to anyone who is capable but still makes no effort to take care of themselves and their children. The purpose of welfare is not to let deadbeats sit back and have others - many of them struggling to provide for their own families - take care of them. The purpose is to help those who need assistance in becoming self-sufficient.

Note: I also advocate welfare-based job training and job placement, so that there is no halfway viable excuse for behavior like this.

Sorry...do you guys have some information I'm lacking? Perhaps about their actual situation in terms of looking for work, etc?

If either of them were looking for work, at least one of them would have found it by now. It wouldn't necessarily be great work, but it would be work. Of course, she was having twins, which could certainly put a damper on looking for work. Not to mention the fact that she already had 5 children that she couldn't provide for, which means that daycare would probably be a bit difficult to work out.

And then, instead of trying to improve that situation, she went and had more kids she can't provide for.

And it's not that hard Dem. Not working does not mean not loving. I honestly can't fathom how you can actually see it like that.

A parent who truly loves her children will do everything she can to provide for them. If she is not doing so, I cannot believe that she truly loves them.

I would work my ass off to take care of any child, mine or not. This woman can't even be bothered to do so for the children she has.

This, all of this, stems from taxpayer outrage. Flowing from that is a way to justify taking those kids. The ONLY way to do that is to make it so that the parents' situation is inherently abusive.

Not at all. I am perfectly happy to pay taxes that go into the welfare system. If that system provided job training and job placement services as well, I'd be happy to pay more for it. This flows from the complete and utter lack of responsibility this woman is demonstrating. You may not think that a parent has a responsibility to provide for her children, but most of us do.

If a parent is not attempting to support the children they make, they are ALREADY ABUSIVE AND NEGLECTFUL.

The fact that the state can step in and mitigate the damage is great. But it doesn't change the fact that the parents are abusive assholes.
So all this bitching, “I never said that”…is bullshit.




Remember, this thread is about people who are receiving money from the government. This means money from the taxpayers. They are being PAID by we the people.

If I'm paying to rear a child, I think I get some say in how it's reared. If I'm the one paying for its housing, I think I get to say where it is housed.
You're paying for children to go to school. Do you get to say where they go to school? What classes they get? What teachers they get?

No.

You're paying for the war effort in Iraq. Do you have a say in that?

But suddenly things change when it comes to this family. How...unrealistic.

Ah screw it...can someone throw me a link to what 'special information' Bottle has about this family?

All I can find is 'they don't have jobs'.

From there, a bunch of hypotheses as to why not, and their motivations.

Hardly facts.

If I missed something factual, please illuminate me.

I have also--clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly--emphasized that I don't believe economic status alone is reason for taking children away from their parents. I have clearly, explicitly, and repeatedly emphasized that I don't think it is wrong for people to use welfare, and that there are plenty of good, hard-working people who find themselves in need of welfare, or who find themselves living in poverty.

As have I. Apparently, when people are trying hard to build a strawman argument, they will ignore repeated explicit statements like this.

As have I. Apparently, when people are trying hard to build a strawman argument, they will ignore repeated explicit statements like this.

Kind of the like the strawmen argument the two of you have been crafting...you know, the one where the kids starve, and have no shoes etc, etc, etc.

Yeah.

No, it isn't. It is tantamount to saying that a parent who makes no effort to take care of children is neglectful at the least, abusive at the worst.

oh but she is indeed making effort to take care of them, she's getting welfare assistance.

If others weren't doing it for her, this woman's children would have no shelter, no clothing, and no food. Would that not be neglect?

I'm sorry, I understand the cause of our disagreements now, I was unaware I was conversing with someone who had a magic crystal ball, my mistake.

Of course not. Taking them away from irresponsible parents making no effort whatsoever to see to their needs, on the other hand? Hell yes.

Well fortunatly getting welfare assistance is taking effort to see to their needs isn't it?


That's the problem. They shouldn't be able to rely on society to do everything for them. They grow up - be fucking adults - and make some attempt to provide for themselves and their family.

OOOOH I see now. It's not "takes no effort" because, after all, they got on welfare, so they did SOMETHING, they got on welfare.

You support welfare then, unless of course those ungrateful baby making machine bitches actually use it.

If either of them were looking for work, at least one of them would have found it by now.

There's that magic crystal ball again, the one that tells you the life situation of people you don't know and assures you they could find jobs while accomodating a schedual of handling 6 kids.

A parent who truly loves her children will do everything she can to provide for them.

Like, for instance, seek government assistance to raise them.

If she is not doing so, I cannot believe that she truly loves them.

I see, so a parent who loves their child will do anything they can to assist them, except getting assistance, in which case they don't love them. What a lovely world of hypocracy you live in.

It's a world where you can safely sit there and say that you support government assistance, but would demonize anyone who actually uses it to better their family. I didn't think it was possible to have your cake and eat it too, but you found a way. Moral righteousness by feeling good to support social welfare, moral superiority to condemn and scorn anyone who actually uses it.

Moral righteousness by feeling good to support social welfare, moral superiority to condemn and scorn anyone who actually uses it.

QFT.
Added to that, the desire to have the power to judge who is worthy, and who is not.

You're paying for children to go to school. Do you get to say where they go to school? What classes they get? What teachers they get?

Yes. Not a direct say, of course (unless we happen to be elected to a school board or become school administrators), but we do have a say in all of that.

We do not, on the other hand, have much control over what private schools do.

You're paying for the war effort in Iraq. Do you have a say in that?

Yes. In fact, the recent elections clearly demonstrated a great deal of frustration with that situation, which has prompted attempts to begin getting out of that arena.

But suddenly things change when it comes to this family. How...unrealistic.

Nothing has changed. Welfare is a use of tax money. As such, just as with anything else that is government-run, the voters have a say in how the system is run. As with the other examples, none of us would have a direct say in the system (unless we were elected officials writing the laws), but we do have a say in it.

Also, the mother getting employment may not neccesarily be the best thing for the children. They should have a parent of some sort at home, day care is not as good.

Also, the mother getting employment may not neccesarily be the best thing for the children. They should have a parent of some sort at home, day care is not as good.

I'm not going to enter into that debate...but at the very least, it's bloody expensive.

I think most people are advocating that at least ONE of them get a job.

Of course, with that many kids...they likely would have LESS to live on that way.

It functionally boils down to this. Everyone against it is saying that she did absolutly nothing to support her children. That is untrue. She is utilizing social welfare.

She's using a system that is available. She is ensuring their wellbeaing through a system that is available to her.

Now we can argue whether it SHOULD be available or not, but that's not the issue. It is, so she is indeed "doing something". You claim it's irresponsible, but, in the end, she DOES have a system that's in place ot support them. Again, we may disagree as to whether or not it SHOULD be there, but it is, so you can hardly call her irresponsible for using it.

The only way to back up this feeling of moral indignation is to make the claim of "well, if it weren't for social welfare, they'd starve, so she's being irresponsible that way". Except that's bullshit, because you're presupposing she'd have the kids if the system was not there in the first place.

What a wonderful litlte position this is, she's irresponsible because she's not taking care of her kids, even though she is, because she wouldn't if wellfare wasn't there, even though we don't know that she'd have those kids anyway.

You make a moral judgement on someone because what she might have done in a different situation. Remind me never to get you on a jury, or, absent that, to teach me this wonderful precognitive ability of yours.

In the end, she did take responsibility, by utilizing a situation she had available ot her. You might not LIKE that it is available ot her, but it iis, and she used it. Were it not available ot her, we have no idea what she might have done, despite your insistance to the contrary. She had an option, she took it. You can dislike that all you want, but I don't see how having a child, knowing there is a system to take care of them, in any way constitutes neglect.

It might have been neglect IF the system was not there, but you surely can't presume to say what any one person might have done

Kind of the like the strawmen argument the two of you have been crafting...you know, the one where the kids starve, and have no shoes etc, etc, etc.

Yeah.

They would if others weren't taking care of this woman's kids.


oh but she is indeed making effort to take care of them, she's getting welfare assistance.

First of all, it stops being "assistance" when you are doing nothing yourself. At that point, it is complete support. Assistance implies that you are doing something yourself, and that you need extra help.

Second of all, sitting back and letting someone else do it for you is not "making an effort." I suppose you'll next tell me that sitting back and waiting for someone else to do my experiments is "making an effort" at my job.

I'm sorry, I understand the cause of our disagreements now, I was unaware I was conversing with someone who had a magic crystal ball, my mistake.

How do you propose that a woman who has no money provide these things?

Well fortunatly getting welfare assistance is taking effort to see to their needs isn't it?

Welfare assistance is a fall-back for those who are attempting to provide for themselves and their families and find that they cannot do it on their own.

That is not what this woman is doing. Instead, she is expecting others to fully support her children, while doing absolutely nothing to support them herself.

OOOOH I see now. It's not "takes no effort" because, after all, they got on welfare, so they did SOMETHING, they got on welfare.

I really wish I could get through life by just filling out a few forms and pretend that it actually took effort. :rolleyes:

You support welfare then, unless of course those ungrateful baby making machine bitches actually use it.

I support welfare when it is properly used - when the person using it is actually making some attempt at becoming self-sufficient. I do not support welfare for those who simply think they should sit back and let others support them.


There's that magic crystal ball again, the one that tells you the life situation of people you don't know and assures you they could find jobs while accomodating a schedual of handling 6 kids.

7, actually. And she CHOSE to have those children KNOWING that she had no means of supporting them - at least the last two. That tells me enough about what kind of efforts she is not making to support herself and her children.

Like, for instance, seek government assistance to raise them.

Once again, there is a difference between seeking assistance (which would mean that you are doing something to provide for them yourself and simply need more help) and relying on the government for complete support.

Of course, a parent who was actually trying to take care of her children wouldn't bring more into the world when she was struggling simply to take care of the one's she has.

It's a world where you can safely sit there and say that you support government assistance, but would demonize anyone who actually uses it to better their family. I didn't think it was possible to have your cake and eat it too, but you found a way. Moral righteousness by feeling good to support social welfare, moral superiority to condemn and scorn anyone who actually uses it.

Wow. You haven't read a word I've said, have you? I haven't demonized anyone who "actually uses it to better their family." In fact, I have repeatedly and explicitly pointed out that there are many hard-working people out there who do everything they can to support their families, and find that it simply isn't enough and that they need assistance (note: assistance). Those are the people who are using welfare as it is intended - as a fall-back for those who have hit hard times and need help to get back on their feet.

That is a far cry from someone who sits back and continually adds to their financial burdens when they are not even doing anything to provide for the ones they already have.

That's what I'm not getting. Bottle and Dem are both arguing that relying solely on welfare is abusive.

But they can only back that up by saying what might happen were that system not in place.

It's nonsensical. The alternative of course, is that relying solely on welfare is NOT abusive.

Oh no!

It functionally boils down to this. Everyone against it is saying that she did absolutly nothing to support her children. That is untrue. She is utilizing social welfare.

In other words, she is doing nothing. She is allowing others to do it for her.

It would be different if she were making some attempt other than utilizing the system, but she isn't. Therefore, she is not, in any way, financially supporting her children. Others are.

They would if others weren't taking care of this woman's kids. Which is not the case, and totally irrelevant. Except as part of an argument about 'how welfare should work'. Another issue altogether.

A strawman, if you will.

In other words, she is doing nothing. She is allowing others to do it for her.

It would be different if she were making some attempt other than utilizing the system, but she isn't. Therefore, she is not, in any way, financially supporting her children. Others are.

And you consider this abuse.

And round and round we go.

"It's abusive because IF other weren't supporting it then 'x' and 'y' MIGHT happen and..."

So. What.

Yes, we make judgments based on the facts at hand.

When a child is intentionally and repeatedly hit with a bat by their parent, we usually judge that to be abuse.

I ask you again: What is your point with this "judgment" versus "fact" thing?

Actually, this started so many posts ago, I think it's a pointless exercise to continue this part of the conversation. Suffice it to say that this woman's abuse of her children is not a fact. Her use of welfare as the sole income is a fact. Any attempt to characterise that as abuse is a judgement. I will say no more of this, as the horse has now been beaten into glue.

Nope. Fail AGAIN.

You've never been this rude on past threads. What's going on? Why are you choosing to either ignore or misrepresent what I'm saying, over and over and over? It's really kind of pathetic at this point, which is not what I've come to expect from you.

I was merely asking a question. I am not trying to be rude. I do not believe that you claimed anything, really. I wanted to know this: What exactly do you believe these people are claiming? I am under the impression they are arguing for the forcible separation of the family due to her reliance on welfare or her wish to have more children while on welfare.

I don't think you're a moron, so the only conclusion I can come to is that you are doing this on purpose.

No. I am honestly having trouble comprehending.

She is making the conscious, calculated decision to not even attempt to support her family, while also making the conscious, calculated decision to increase her family size. She is choosing not to even attempt to fulfill one of the two roles of a parent (material and 'emotional' support).

Basically, she has already decided that she is not parent to these children. Taking them away would simply be an acknowledgment of her abdication of that role.

I AM NOT saying she deserves to have her children taken away because she is poor.

I AM NOT saying she deserve to have her children taken away because she is on welfare.

I AM NOT saying she deserves to have her children taken away because she is having more children while on welfare.

I will attempt yet once more to verify that I have understood correctly: You believe she should have her children removed from her custody because she wishes to have more children while not fulfilling the parental role of provider.

Am I correct?

-snip-

And once again you miss the point by a mile. Regarldess of what we think of the system, it is there. It exists. We might not like that it exists, we might not agree with how it exists, we may not think that this woman should benefit from its existance.

But it is, and she can. Therefore, the children are being provded for. You might not like HOW they're being provided for, but they are. You can swing terms like "neglect" all you want, but the system is in place to ensure they are being taken care of. The mother is utilizing that system. Therefore, there is no neglect, as the mothers efforts have ensured they get support.

You might not like that her efforts, perhaps minimal, were able to get support, but it did. Maybe it is lazy. Hell, it probably is absolutly down right lazy, and ungrateful, and maybe a little unerving.

But she utliized the system that was there for her and got support for her children. Therefore you frankly have some nerve calling it "neglect", any more than it is neglect to let a child get on a public bus rather than make them walk.

The system was there she used it, the children get support. You're entitled not to like the fact that she could do so, but your personal bad feelings about HOW she went about getting support for her children does not in any way change the fact that she DID get support ofr her children.

In fact your very wording of it suggests nothing more than personal dislike of it "I wish I could fill out a form and have someone else do my job", how nice. So it's really just resentment, nothing more. How dare that bitch do something I can't do, even though she legally had the right to do it.

So you call it neglect, you call it abuse, even though, those children are still getting money. And you try to somehow get around that fact by saying "well if it wasn't for welfare..." ignoring the fact that discussing what might have been if.... is quite beyond the purview of human beings.

So you make an assumption about this woman, you judge her in a certain way, you call her abusive, and to back up this assumption, you presuppose what she might have done in a different situation, based on your own preconceived notions of her.

can't say that her children are not being taken care of, all you can say is that you don't like the system that allows her to get support for them in the mannor that she is, and then use that to make judgements about her based on what you THINK she MIGHT do in an entirely different situation.

Which, ok, that's your right. But at least let's be open about your intellectual dishonesty.

In other words, she is doing nothing. She is allowing others to do it for her.

Which is an option she has available to her. You might not like that option, but it is there, non?

It would be different if she were making some attempt other than utilizing the system, but she isn't. Therefore, she is not, in any way, financially supporting her children. Others are.

And yet, that is an option she has available to her. I don't see the neglect here, for utilizing a system that is in place.

You're entitled to not like the system, that's ok. I don't care for it either. But all you're doing is making a judgement on someone based on what SHE MIGHT DO in a different situation. And if all you can do to back up your argument that she's being neglectful is to quibble about the difference between "support" and "assistance" and talk about what the system SHOULD do, while ignoring entirely that she is taking advantage of what it DOES do, you're not on pretty strong foundation.

and poor people don't have the right to have children?

Of course they have a right to have children.

but with rights come responsibilities.

It's just dumb/irresponsible -- negligent -- to have that many kids without a source of income. If the taxpayers (and/or individual generosity) don't support them, who will?

Of course they have a right to have children.

but with rights come responsibilities.

It's just dumb/irresponsible -- negligent -- to have that many kids without a source of income. If the taxpayers (and/or individual generosity) don't support them, who will?

ahh, another member of the crystal ball society.

And you consider this abuse.

And round and round we go.

"It's abusive because IF other weren't supporting it then 'x' and 'y' MIGHT happen and..."

It is neglect because she is not doing her job as a parent.

If I have a dog that I am not feeding, and the next-door neighbors feed it for me, am I not guilty of neglecting my pet? Does my neglect disappear simply because someone else saw fit to take care of it? No. In fact, those neighbors can have the animal taken away from me, and can see me put in jail.

Why do our children constantly get less consideration than our animals? Why is it ok for a parent to sit back and expect others to provide for her children when she would face legal action for doing the same with an animal?

And, somewhat unrelated to this thread, but one of my legal peeves, why is child neglect where I live a misdemeanor, while abuse or neglect of an animal is a felony?


I was merely asking a question. I am not trying to be rude. I do not believe that you claimed anything, really. I wanted to know this: What exactly do you believe these people are claiming? I am under the impression they are arguing for the forcible separation of the family due to her reliance on welfare or her wish to have more children while on welfare.

Neither of these things, on its own, would be enough to do so. I think it is extremely irresponsible to have children when one cannot even support the family one has, but that alone would not do it. It is the fact that the extent to which this woman has done it that I think would warrant such action. She now has 7 children, and is not contributing a single dime to supporting any of them. Why? Well, according to her, it is because, "she loves kids because she used to babysit." The complete lack of responsibility is the problem here. It isn't that she is on welfare. It isn't that she is having children. It is that she is showing no responsibility whatsoever for the welfare of the children she has, while continuing to have more.


In fact your very wording of it suggests nothing more than personal dislike of it "I wish I could fill out a form and have someone else do my job", how nice. So it's really just resentment, nothing more. How dare that bitch do something I can't do, even though she legally had the right to do it.

Not exactly. There is resentment, but not because I truly want to be like her. I'm actually proud of my accomplishments, and the fact that I no longer have to rely on others to take care of me. I would ask for help if it was needed, but I'm not going to sit back and let others take care of me, whether the system would do it or not.

I do resent her, however, for taking advantage of a system that was set up for people who truly need help. I resent her for being the type of person who turns many others against that system in its entirety and stands in the way of expanding that system to provide the type of support people need to actually get out of their situation. I resent her because the chances that any of those children will be able to get a good education is extremely low and, welfare or not, getting out of poverty will be very difficult, if not impossible for them.

I'm sorry if I actually feel sympathy for people who truly need the system - people who aren't sitting back and expecting others to do everything for them.

Which is an option she has available to her. You might not like that option, but it is there, non?

Indeed. But that still means that she is not fulfilling the parental duty of being a provider. The government, and thus, her community, is doing that for her.

And yet, that is an option she has available to her. I don't see the neglect here, for utilizing a system that is in place.

It may not fit the legal definition, but it sure as hell fits the standard definition. This woman is not seeing to her children's needs. She is, instead, relying on others to do that for her. She could be making an attempt to see to her children's needs, and is choosing not to. She is choosing, instead, to increase the number of children who have said needs.

ne·glect

1 : to give little attention or respect to : disregard 2 : to leave undone or unattended to especially through carelessness

Both of these definitions quite clearly fit what this woman is doing. She is giving little attention to providing for her children's needs, instead focusing on her own wants. She is also leaving that financial support undone - expecting someone else to do it instead.

You're entitled to not like the system, that's ok. I don't care for it either. But all you're doing is making a judgement on someone based on what SHE MIGHT DO in a different situation. And if all you can do to back up your argument that she's being neglectful is to quibble about the difference between "support" and "assistance" and talk about what the system SHOULD do, while ignoring entirely that she is taking advantage of what it DOES do, you're not on pretty strong foundation.

"Taking advantage of". What delightful wording. Yes, she is "taking advantage of" it.

Maybe they should just do what they (usually, though there are exceptions) do in the UK: Give hardly any money for each child. But then that's kinda cruel. Maybe there should just be vouchers like refugees have to use.

It is neglect because she is not doing her job as a parent.

If I have a dog that I am not feeding, and the next-door neighbors feed it for me, am I not guilty of neglecting my pet? Does my neglect disappear simply because someone else saw fit to take care of it? No. In fact, those neighbors can have the animal taken away from me, and can see me put in jail.


Sorry, the situation is not comparable. How about you try this...the neighbour gives her the money, and she goes out and buys dog food. No neglect.

I LOVE how you and Bottle keep using ridiculous comparisons (being beaten with a baseball bat, treated worse than animals).

The fact is, you have done nothing to refute Neo Art's points. The system is there, she has accessed it, the children are provided for. Period.

If she went and spent that welfare money on diamonds, and let the kids go hungry, then you might have a case.

But 'might' is all you've got as it is...let's not stretch your tenuous argument any further, hmmm?

The fact is, you have done nothing to refute Neo Art's points. The system is there, she has accessed it, the children are provided for. Period.

Good. Next question: is it right to use the system in this manner ?
If so, should I be allowed to clone myself a few million times at your expense ?

And since neglect, in this sense is a LEGAL term, not something you can just whip out a dictionary and define for us, why don't we examine what neglect ACTUALLY means? I just randomly pulled up NY state's definition, which of course is not applicable to these folks...but is at least a good starting point.

http://www.cvb.state.ny.us/forms/Child%20abuse%20web%20Final.pdf

(1) In order to be neglected these conditions must all apply:

A child's physical, mental or emotional condition is impaired or in imminent danger of becoming impaired.
A child's parent or other legally responsible person must fail to exercise minimum degree of care in the actions described in section (2) below.
Such failure must result in the impairment or danger of impairment to the child.


(2) Failure to provide a minimum degree of care in the following actions:

In supplying adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, medical, dental, optometrical or surgical care to a child, when financially able to do so or when offered financial or other reasonable means to do so In providing a child with proper supervision or guardianship
By unreasonably inflicting or allow to be inflicted harm, or a substantial risk of harm, including excessive corporal punishment
Misusing a drug or drugs
Misusing alcoholic beverages to the extent that the parent or other legally responsible person loses self-control of their actions
Or by any act of a similarily serious nature that may require the aid of the court.


Sorry...her actions, utilising the welfare system to ensure for the upkeep of her kids, is not legally neglect.

She could get all the money in the world from the state, AND neglect her kids by not bathing them, feeding them properly, caring for them, etc, etc, etc. But accessing the welfare system to the exclusion of all other forms of income is not, by definition, neglect.

http://www.wfaa.com/video/?nvid=148417&shu=1

This woman has already given birth to four kids and has twins on the way. Neither her nor her boyfriend have jobs. I believe in a social safety net to take care of people down on their luck but having six kids on welfare is fucked up.

yes, because letting 6 children starve is such a better option:rolleyes:

Good. Next question: is it right to use the system in this manner ?
If so, should I be allowed to clone myself a few million times at your expense ?

Once we actually turn this conversation to SHOULD, then it's all good. It will at least be an honest discussion.

Sorry, the situation is not comparable. How about you try this...the neighbour gives her the money, and she goes out and buys dog food. No neglect.

I would still say it is neglect if she has no intention of buying the dog food on her own. In either case, the woman is not providing the food - the neighbor is. The fact that the money changes hands first doesn't change the fact that the woman is shirking her own responsibilities or that someone else has taken them over for her.

Meanwhile, at that point, a better comparison would be, "Her city has a fund to help pay for food for animals that their owners cannot currently provide for until they are better situated. This woman feeds her dog out of the fund. Then she takes money out of this fund and gets another dog. And another. And another. She makes no effort to feed the dogs herself. Now the fund struggles to pay for people who really do wish to take care of their animals but have found themselves in need."

I LOVE how you and Bottle keep using ridiculous comparisons (being beaten with a baseball bat, treated worse than animals).

It isn't a ridiculous comparison. No matter how you look at it, this woman isn't doing anything to provide for her children. She is expecting others to do it for her.

I see precious little difference between what this woman is doing and the situation I described with a pet. The difference is not in her actions, but in the surroundings in which she finds herself. She is no less negligent simply because other people take over her parental responsibilities.

If someone else chooses does my work for me rather than have it not get done, does that mean I have not been negligent in doing my job?

The fact is, you have done nothing to refute Neo Art's points. The system is there, she has accessed it, the children are provided for. Period.

I never argued with any of this. She has misused the system, and is getting rewarded for it. I've never disputed that. It doesn't change the fact that she is not living up to the responsibilities of being a parent. It doesn't change the fact that SHE is not providing for her children. The fact that others have chosen to provide for them does not change the fact that she has been personally negligent in doing so.

If she went and spent that welfare money on diamonds, and let the kids go hungry, then you might have a case.

The fact that she is sitting back relying on the labor of others is my case. If she spent that money on luxuries, that would simply make her even more reprehensible.

And since neglect, in this sense is a LEGAL term,

No, it isn't. I made it quite clear that I was not talking about it in a legal sense. I know you have a hard-on for the law and you think no one else should ever discuss it because you're the uber-expert, but I clearly stated that I wasn't using it as it is currently legally defined.

Once we actually turn this conversation to SHOULD, then it's all good. It will at least be an honest discussion.

The conversation always has been about "should". Perhaps you missed the numerous times when I talked about what I think the welfare system should do. Perhaps you missed the post where I clearly stated that I know the current legal situation would not allow the children to be permanently removed from her custody but I think it should.

And you obviously missed the explicit statement that I was not using neglect in a legal sense, as I know it wouldn't currently apply.

Maybe you should calm down and work on your reading comprehension and then come back.


yes, because letting 6 children starve is such a better option

No one has been arguing that the children should be allowed to starve. Meanwhile, it is seven, not six.

Hey, my mother didn't work. Does that mean she abused me?

Dempublicents,

This may seem nitpicky, but when you say "this woman isn't doing anything to provide for her children", you are dismissing all her efforts as a full time homemaker, which is not easy when you have two kids, let alone six.

You are correct when you say she is doing nothing financially to provide for her children, but that is a far cry from doing nothing at all. She still does all that unpaid work that countless generations of mothers have done.

yeah, and I do mine, and my husband goes to work, and I make money, and I am not popping out more kids than we can afford.

Dempublicents,

This may seem nitpicky, but when you say "this woman isn't doing anything to provide for her children", you are dismissing all her efforts as a full time homemaker, which is not easy when you have two kids, let alone six.

You are correct when you say she is doing nothing financially to provide for her children, but that is a far cry from doing nothing at all. She still does all that unpaid work that countless generations of mothers have done.

Dempublicents,

This may seem nitpicky, but when you say "this woman isn't doing anything to provide for her children", you are dismissing all her efforts as a full time homemaker, which is not easy when you have two kids, let alone six.

Not at all. First of all, that's why I said "provide for", rather than "take care of." I suspect that she does little to actually take care of them, but I don't know that for certain, so I haven't been saying it.

Second of all, we're talking about seven kids here. Seven kids that she chose to have, knowing that she did not have the means to take care of them. I could feel sympathy for the first, maybe even the second pregnancy. Maybe she really is so dense that the need for birth control didn't get through her head until then. But I don't feel sympathy for the fact that she has seven kids to take care of and provide for. She chose that burden for herself. Now she needs to at least attempt live up to it.

You are correct when you say she is doing nothing financially to provide for her children, but that is a far cry from doing nothing at all. She still does all that unpaid work that countless generations of mothers have done.

Those "countless generations of mothers" didn't sit back and rely on the government to provide for them and their children while they kept on having more children. As a general rule, someone in the household was working to provide for the family. And when a mother found herself single, even a mother of multiple children, she did go to work to take care of them. Even in situations where there were two parents in the household and the mother was largely a homemaker, she would often bring in income of her own through some means (sewing, tutoring, whatever she could do). Even in those "countless generations", you often had both parents working outside the home, while the woman (generally) also took care of the household.

My own grandmother had six children. They were well provided for until she divorced and her ex-husband provided no financial support. She didn't get a free pass to sit around and expect others to take care of her children. She worked her butt off to put food on the table. When it wasn't enough, she (and her mother) ate less, making sure that the children got the food they needed. She was lucky in that she had several older children and her own mother to help (although she did quite a bit of it herself) take care of the house. She and her mother also made most of the clothing in the household.

My grandmother wasn't the best parent in the world, but she didn't sit back and expect others to take over her responsibilities - and she didn't have any of those children at a time when she couldn't support them.

yeah, and I do mine, and my husband goes to work, and I make money, and I am not popping out more kids than we can afford.

I should clarify: I don't think the status of her homemaking abilities has anything to do with the debate. I was just being nitpicky about Dempublicent's statements about the woman 'not doing anything'. I don't really have a point.

It isn't a ridiculous comparison. No matter how you look at it, this woman isn't doing anything to provide for her children. She is expecting others to do it for her. It still isn't neglect. Sorry, no matter how much you want it to be...her kids are provided the necessaries of life. Where those funds come from don't swing the balance and make it abuse.



No, it isn't. Yes, it is. Child abuse, and child neglect are legally defined terms. They have to be...because an entire child welfare system hinges on what exactly is actionable, and what is not. Look in your little dictionary Dem, all you want. It doesn't make your definition correct, when we are discussing what is, for all intents and purposes, a legal system of child welfare. If, in your fantasy world, you wish to create a new system, one that works with your dictionary definition, by all means feel free. I assumed we were talking about reality.

By the way...my 'hard on' for the law is no worse than the way you flog that dictionary, babe. Thing is...my definition is supported.



The conversation always has been about "should". Perhaps you missed the numerous times when I talked about what I think the welfare system should do. Perhaps you missed the post where I clearly stated that I know the current legal situation would not allow the children to be permanently removed from her custody but I think it should.

And you obviously missed the explicit statement that I was not using neglect in a legal sense, as I know it wouldn't currently apply.

Maybe you should calm down and work on your reading comprehension and then come back.
Well that's very nice. Your opinion it that these children are either abused or neglected.

Reality is, they are neither.

Good to be clear.

Hey, my mother didn't work. Does that mean she abused me?

If she raised you on government funds, yes. You should have been removed from the home.

Not at all. First of all, that's why I said "provide for", rather than "take care of." I suspect that she does little to actually take care of them, but I don't know that for certain, so I haven't been saying it.

God woman, haven't you ever even babysat? You don't have seven kids in a house and 'do little to actually take care of them'. Not without locking yourself in the basement.

Cripes, just imagine how many times she changes diapers in a day...

Cripes, just imagine how many times she changes diapers in a day...

probably not often enough.

Instead, she is expecting others to fully support her children.

Well, we're willing to do it, aren't we? Is there a problem?

God woman, haven't you ever even babysat? You don't have seven kids in a house and 'do little to actually take care of them'. Not without locking yourself in the basement.

Cripes, just imagine how many times she changes diapers in a day...

am I supposed to feel sorry for her because she keeps popping out kids now?

probably not often enough.

Ah yes. More 'mights' and 'probablys'.

am I supposed to feel sorry for her because she keeps popping out kids now?

No. But when people assume stupid shit about her, based on an absolute paucity of fact, I get to question those assumptions.

Well, we're willing to do it, aren't we? Is there a problem?

She's not willing.

Hell, I'm not willing to let my tax dollars fund politicians' golf-trips to Japan. We all take hits.

Ah yes. More 'mights' and 'probablys'.

what're you,The Lifted Lorax? Shut up....

No. But when people assume stupid shit about her, based on an absolute paucity of fact, I get to question those assumptions.

you mean like when I assume that she isn't able to support the children without welfare, when the article says that she doesn't have a job and is relying on welfare? OMG! I assumed! I am so freaking evil. Oh and poor her all these kids showing up out of nowhere with no action on her part and oh, all the dishes and the diapers, and having to supervise them?! OMG! I just couldn't imagine, I have people that do all those things for me.........to actually be expected to wipe your kid's ass!? the humanity! let's give her more money so she can hire someone to do that.

you mean like when I assume that she isn't able to support the children without welfare, when the article says that she doesn't have a job and is relying on welfare? Get a grip, Smunkee. You responded to my post that specifically referred to the assumption being made that she did little to take care of her kids.

Nice try though.
Oh and poor her all these kids showing up out of nowhere with no action on her part and oh, all the dishes and the diapers, and having to supervise them? So you admit there is work involed in taking care of them. Glad we agree.


! OMG! I just couldn't imagine, I have people that do all those things for me.........to actually be expected to wipe your kid's ass!? the humanity! let's give her more money so she can hire someone to do that.
Yes, let's pull more out of our ass to demonise this woman. Clearly she is looking for maid service, on top of all that welfare.

Actually, I'll leave you to argue this point you've made up.

what're you,The Lifted Lorax? Shut up....

I'm the South-going Zax baby.

Shouldn't you be making me a sandwich?

(I've missed having you growling at me)

Maybe we can hire someone to make one for us with our welfare money!
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAAAA.

Ay, como me haces reír.

I'm the South-going Zax baby.

Shouldn't you be making me a sandwich?

Maybe we can hire someone to make one for us with our welfare money!

I'm the South-going Zax baby.

Shouldn't you be making me a sandwich?

(I've missed having you growling at me)

You're a Sneetch,at best. with out a star, no less.

My growler was broken,for a while.

You're a Sneetch,at best. with out a star, no less. Bah, those star-belly sneetches always thought they were the best sneetches on the beaches. We sure showed them! Now we get to go to ALL their frankfurter roasts!

My growler was broken,for a while.Hope it's feeling better!

Yes, let's pull more out of our ass to demonise this woman. Clearly she is looking for maid service, on top of all that welfare.
hey, if I am supposed to feel sorry for her with all the taking care of her own damn kids she does........while she is unemployed and living off of other people, maybe you guys should all feel sorry for me.......I take care of my kids, and work more than 60 hours a week.

where is my welfare? why doesn't anyone hold me up as a good mom? why can't I sit on my ass all day and get pity for the choices I made?

I'm surprised nobody is criticizing the father here. Seven kids and he doesn't have a job? By this point he should be attempting to obtain as much employment as humanly possible.

hey, if I am supposed to feel sorry for her with all the taking care of her own damn kids she does........while she is unemployed and living off of other people, maybe you guys should all feel sorry for me.......I take care of my kids, and work more than 60 hours a week. Quit quoting me while you go on your tangent unrelated to anything I've said. Thanks.

I'm surprised nobody is criticizing the father here. Seven kids and he doesn't have a job? By this point he should be attempting to obtain as much employment as humanly possible.

they should both take care of their children, I just think the mom is a little bit more at fault because she should have exercised her choice not to have so many damn kids. it's her body, her choice (see how that works)

I'm surprised nobody is criticizing the father here. Seven kids and he doesn't have a job? By this point he should be attempting to obtain as much employment as humanly possible.

That is interesting, isn't it? I mean, I doubt there is anyone in this thread who doesn't feel that one of them, most likely him, should have a job. But all this anger and resentment pouring out is directed in the main at her.

why can't I sit on my ass all day and get pity for the choices I made?

You should be glad that you are smart and responsible enough not to sit on your ass all day getting pity for the choices you made. ;)

She could have used some form of birth control. Then again, the father could have as well. It's both of their responsibilities. To single out the mother as the cause is, well, strange. It does after all take sperm to fertilize that egg, and I rather doubt parthenogenesis is responsible for the seven children.



As far as I'm concerned the father deserves solid, repeated, beatings all the way to a first, second and third job. No matter how boring, back-breaking, or menial they may be. Then more beatings when he even considers not using a condom the next time.

It still isn't neglect. Sorry, no matter how much you want it to be...her kids are provided the necessaries of life. Where those funds come from don't swing the balance and make it abuse.

It does in my mind. While you may disagree, I believe it is the responsibility of a parent to provide for and take care of his/her children. A parent who does not do this is being neglectful.

Yes, it is. Child abuse, and child neglect are legally defined terms.

They have legal definitions, yes. What is your point?

They have to be...because an entire child welfare system hinges on what exactly is actionable, and what is not.

Indeed. But that doesn't change the fact that I have just as much right as you to discuss what I think should be actionable and what should not. I am well aware that this woman's actions are not currently actionable. This does not mean I think they should not be.

By the way...my 'hard on' for the law is no worse than the way you flog that dictionary, babe. Thing is...my definition is supported.

As is mine. Thing is, I've made it explicitly clear that I'm not talking about the legal definition - that I know that, much like with many things in the law, the legal definition does not match the standard definition.

Well that's very nice. Your opinion it that these children are either abused or neglected.

Reality is, they are neither.

In your opinion. Apparently, you don't think parents have any responsibility to provide for their children.

God woman, haven't you ever even babysat? You don't have seven kids in a house and 'do little to actually take care of them'. Not without locking yourself in the basement.

Cripes, just imagine how many times she changes diapers in a day...

Yes, I have babysat, and I was an attentive babysitter. But then again, I'm not irresponsible and lazy. It is certainly possible to largely ignore children until they get into major trouble and to let a diaper sit dirty much longer than it should. I've seen parents that do both.

In my experience, irresponsible people are generally irresponsible in most or all aspects of their lives. While, as I said, I do not know it to be true, I would suspect that this woman isn't a very attentive parent and I wouldn't be surprised to find that her house isn't kept up well either.


Hey, my mother didn't work. Does that mean she abused me?

Did she have the means to provide for you? If not, and she did attempt to provide for you, then yes. You were lucky that someone else chose to do it for her.

If, on the other hand, your mother was a homemaker while someone else in the household provided for the family or your mother was unable to work to provide for you, then no.


Well, we're willing to do it, aren't we? Is there a problem?

I'm willing to support the children and see that they get the care they need. I am not, on the other hand, willing to support this woman, or any other adult who makes no effort to provide for themselves or their families. Hence the reason I would support a welfare system in which all benefits were cut off if the recipient was making no effort at providing for himself and his family.

Get a grip, Smunkee. You responded to my post that specifically referred to the assumption being made that she did little to take care of her kids.

You really are having a problem with reading comprehension today, aren't you? I didn't make any such assumption. In fact, I explicitly stated that I cannot know for sure. I simply pointed out that it wouldn't surprise me - that I suspect that she does little to take care of her kids.


hey, if I am supposed to feel sorry for her with all the taking care of her own damn kids she does........while she is unemployed and living off of other people, maybe you guys should all feel sorry for me.......I take care of my kids, and work more than 60 hours a week.

where is my welfare? why doesn't anyone hold me up as a good mom? why can't I sit on my ass all day and get pity for the choices I made?

Because you're actually a responsible human being who is willing to provide for and take care of your own children?

Wait....that doesn't make sense.....


I'm surprised nobody is criticizing the father here. Seven kids and he doesn't have a job? By this point he should be attempting to obtain as much employment as humanly possible.

I think the father is equally culpable, at least for the two children that are his. But the woman isn't neglecting to provide for two children. She's neglecting to provide for seven. It's a matter of degree. All the fathers of her children should be providing for their children as well, but the fact that this woman has seven she isn't providing for, well, that's goes beyond despicable.

She could have used some form of birth control. Then again, the father could have as well. It's both of their responsibilities.

Indeed it is. But is this particular father responsible for the children that are not his?

The discussion has centered on the mother because she has had not one, not two, but seven children (albeit from four pregnancies) that she cannot provide for. To our knowledge, the father has had only two (from one pregnancy).

As far as I'm concerned the father deserves solid, repeated, beatings all the way to a first, second and third job. No matter how boring, back-breaking, or menial they may be. Then more beatings when he even considers not using a condom the next time.

Maybe not beatings, but he certainly does deserve something - and he definitely doesn't deserve to receive any welfare payments at all if he isn't either employed or actively seeking employment.

You really are having a problem with reading comprehension today, aren't you? I didn't make any such assumption. In fact, I explicitly stated that I cannot know for sure. I simply pointed out that it wouldn't surprise me - that I suspect that she does little to take care of her kids.
And you really want to wiggle out of the negative connotations of your words.

You have as much as stated that you are assuming she is lazy and irresponsible when it comes to taking care of her children because 'in your experience' lazy and irresponsible people are usually lazy and irresponsible in other ways. Your little addition of 'I bet this is true, but I don't really know...I'm just saying...' doesn't change the fact that you, Dem, believe it is probably true. You 'suspect it'. You 'assume' it is probably the case.


In my experience, irresponsible people are generally irresponsible in most or all aspects of their lives. While, as I said, I do not know it to be true, I would suspect that this woman isn't a very attentive parent and I wouldn't be surprised to find that her house isn't kept up well either.
You aren't exactly giving her the benefit of the doubt, no matter what your sweet little caveats say. You ARE assuming the worst, and you feel justified in it. AT LEAST have the intellectual honesty to just admit that, instead of hiding behind the word 'suspect'. Is it really so hard?

So tell me again how my reading comprehension is so poor...how I'm just not getting what you're saying.

That is interesting, isn't it? I mean, I doubt there is anyone in this thread who doesn't feel that one of them, most likely him, should have a job. But all this anger and resentment pouring out is directed in the main at her.

In fairness, she was the one who made the comment that she has babies because she took care of them as a babysitter and she likes them. That's probably why attention focused on her.

But yeah, dad's a deadbeat, too.

*watching the video again*

And you really want to wiggle out of the negative connotations of your words.

You have as much as stated that you are assuming she is lazy and irresponsible when it comes to taking care of her children because 'in your experience' lazy and irresponsible people are usually lazy and irresponsible in other ways. Your little addition of 'I bet this is true, but I don't really know...I'm just saying...' doesn't change the fact that you, Dem, believe it is probably true. You 'suspect it'. You 'assume' it is probably the case.

You aren't exactly giving her the benefit of the doubt, no matter what your sweet little caveats say. You ARE assuming the worst, and you feel justified in it. AT LEAST have the intellectual honesty to just admit that, instead of hiding behind the word 'suspect'. Is it really so hard?

So tell me again how my reading comprehension is so poor...how I'm just not getting what you're saying.

I'm not assuming anything. I am speculating. I'm not basing anything further on that speculation. It came up, and I pointed out my suspicions.

It isn't a matter of hiding, there is a real difference between the words. Surely someone who plans to get caught up in legalese can appreciate the difference between various words and uses of those words.

Oh my fucking god...oh, this is hilarious. I'm serious, I have tears in my eyes...I can't believe I missed this!

I know, I know...you're going to say, 'oh but I never actually said for sure that her kids have different fathers' and 'I would never assume that...I just SUSPECT that someone who is lazy and irresponsible PROBABLY fucked around a lot and so the other kids PROBABLY aren't his'.

Wow Dem. Just...wow.

Actually, if you bothered to watch the video in the OP....

I didn't assume that the children were from different fathers. It came from the video. They didn't say how many previous fathers there were, but they did introduce the current boyfriend as "the father of the latest set of twins."

The fact that so many people have been going on and on about her "six kids" and assuming that this man was the father of all of them demonstrates how many people haven't even bothered to watch the video that prompted the discussion.

I'm not assuming anything. I am speculating. I'm not basing anything further on that speculation. It came up, and I pointed out my suspicions.

It isn't a matter of hiding, there is a real difference between the words. Surely someone who plans to get caught up in legalese can appreciate the difference between various words and uses of those words. Bah, I'm just going to stick my tongue out at this point and go, "Neener neener neener". Fine. I won't call you on the 'speculations' you come up with, despite the fact that they are all about as negative as possible. I also won't point out that calling it an 'assumption' as opposed to a 'speculation' gives you nothing further to base on that anyway, since you've already accused this woman of neglect. There are legitimate differences in terms...and then again, there are words we use to clean up our image.



Actually, if you bothered to watch the video in the OP....

I didn't assume that the children were from different fathers. It came from the video. They didn't say how many previous fathers there were, but they did introduce the current boyfriend as "the father of the latest set of twins."
I had to watch it a couple of times again to notice that actually...I've been trying to find an article that isn't just a transcript of the video to confirm, but alright, I'll concede that you at least got this 'suspicion' from somewhere concrete. Or wait. That really wasn't an assumption? Even backed up by the video?

Alright then. On that one, I would have thought an assumption would be merited.

Bah, I'm just going to stick my tongue out at this point and go, "Neener neener neener". Fine. I won't call you on the 'speculations' you come up with, despite the fact that they are all about as negative as possible.


I had to watch it a couple of times to notice that actually...I've been trying to find an article that isn't just a transcript of the video to confirm, but alright, I'll concede that you at least got this suspicion from somewhere concrete.

http://www.khou.com/news/state/stories/khou070601_tnt_twins.53a8755.html

I think we should have a mandatory 1 child policy like China. After you have a child You should have your tubes tied/vasectomy be mandatory.

I think we should have a mandatory 1 child policy like China. After you have a child You should have your tubes tied/vasectomy be mandatory.

Yeah, that policy is working out REAL well (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-07-voa38.cfm?CFID=164468431&CFTOKEN=15790550) in China.

http://www.khou.com/news/state/stories/khou070601_tnt_twins.53a8755.html

Yeah, I've found a bunch of different articles. The basic wording of that part 'father of the latest set' seems to be exactly the same in all of them.

Yeah, that policy is working out REAL well (http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-03/2006-03-07-voa38.cfm?CFID=164468431&CFTOKEN=15790550) in China.

60 today is like being 30's people can probaly work into thier 80's or 90's. We will have to reduce birth rates anyway due to smaller amounts of rescources. As far as being too many men you can put the extra men in prisons.

60 today is like being 30's people can probaly work into thier 80's or 90's. We will have to reduce birth rates anyway due to smaller amounts of rescources. As far as being too many men you can put the extra men in prisons.

Boy, you've just got it all figured out.

Make people work until they die of old age.

Jail the extra men.

Paradise!:rolleyes:

Boy, you've just got it all figured out.

Make people work until they die of old age.

Jail the extra men.

Paradise!:rolleyes:

Not Paradise........Even with the medical technology today older people can live better lives then they did 30 or 40 years ago. Thats why being 60 today isn't like being 60 30 years ago. Read some issues of Modern Maturity Magazine. In the future we might be able to eliminate old age to 100 years.

The extra male population will have higher rates of commiting crimes anyway and we'll probaly end up having to build double the prisons we have now which will mean we'll also have to have more prison guards.

Not Paradise........Even with the medical technology today older people can live better lives then they did 30 or 40 years ago. Thats why being 60 today isn't like being 60 30 years ago. Read some issues of Modern Maturity Magazine. In the future we might be able to eliminate old age to 100 years.

The extra male population will have higher rates of commiting crimes anyway and we'll probaly end up having to build double the prisons we have now which will mean we'll also have to have more prison guards.

You're effed up. And not in a good way, either.

You're effed up. And not in a good way, either.

Um the first part is true. Older populations are living better today due to medical science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_extension


second part...well maybe a little crazy but who isn't crazy sometimes.

Woah woah woah, she really couldn't wait to have kids, could she? Did you catch the ages? :eek:

She's twenty. Her oldest is four, the first set of twins are three, and the second set are two. I see two problems here that probably have prevented her from finding work.

The first is that she's twenty. That means her oldest was born when she was sixteen. I could almost guarantee she didn't finish high school, particularly if she was pregnant at seventeen with the first set of twins and then again at eighteen with the second. There's no way she finished schooling.

The second reason is that all of the kids are about a year apart- in order to do that, she would have pretty much had to have been pregnant within a month or two after giving birth, assuming she carried all of her children to term. This being said, finding a job must be pretty difficult for someone who's constantly on maternity leave.

What really truly has me baffled though is her utter nonchalance at her situation. She, an unmarried, unemployed, twenty year old woman, is bringing two more children into this world. And she does not seem to be at all worried about how she's going to provide for them. She doesn't seem to be treating this situation like an adult at all- because a responsible adult would not bring more children into an already desperate situation.

To respond to what one user said about implementing China's one child policy, I can't say I agree with that. Just teaching people to take responsibility for their own actions would be enough.

Woah woah woah, she really couldn't wait to have kids, could she? Did you catch the ages? :eek:

She's twenty. Her oldest is four, the first set of twins are three, and the second set are two.

Jealous or something?

Jealous or something?

Honestly a person shouldn't have a child before 22. (both male or female)
And a person shouldn't bel allowed to have more kids than they can afford. We need to really have a license to have kids. It is a burden on both our goverment and resources.

Oh god no. I'm not even twenty yet. I can't imagine having kids at my age. :P

But I also know that at nineteen, twenty years old, you aren't responsible enough to really truly care for kids as a parent. For one, there's a lot of "living" you need to get out of your system and two you're just barely an adult- you're still kind of a kid. How do you raise one at that age, let alone seven?

Honestly a person shouldn't have a child before 22. (both male or female)
And a person shouldn't bel allowed to have more kids than they can afford. We need to really have a license to have kids. It is a burden on both our goverment and resources.

Again...that would be a horrible idea. I don't want the government mandating what they consider the proper prerequisite to having children. It's the parents' choice. And yes, I understand that there are some circumstances where the parents' "choice" could result in welfare expenses, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for my right to have children regardless to have circumstance.

I'm 44 and I'm far too immature to have kids. That, and they're a bringdown.

Oh god no. I'm not even twenty yet. I can't imagine having kids at my age. :P

But I also know that at nineteen, twenty years old, you aren't responsible enough to really truly care for kids as a parent. For one, there's a lot of "living" you need to get out of your system and two you're just barely an adult- you're still kind of a kid. How do you raise one at that age, let alone seven?

Between 25-35 is the most fertile times for a human. Thats my point people who have kids at a young age haven't lived or have the education to be able to look after children so they go on welfare and end up draining money from others. If you wait to you're in your mid to late 20's to mid thirties. you'll have the education and age to know how to look after a child.


My cousin didn't have a child until she was 45. she then had 2 more and she can look after them very well. I don't plan to have kids until I know i'm both finacially stable and muture enough.

The problem is it's not JUST the welfare expense- it's at the kids expense too. Having unqualified parents ruins childhood for those kids. They end up in orphanages or in foster care, or in homes that can't afford to feed them. I'm not saying strict requirements, but something basic, like a certain amount of money, or a job.

Again...that would be a horrible idea. I don't want the government mandating what they consider the proper prerequisite to having children. It's the parents' choice. And yes, I understand that there are some circumstances where the parents' "choice" could result in welfare expenses, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for my right to have children regardless to have circumstance.

Ok maybe she should have taken some responsibilty and had an abortion after the first child.

The problem is that these people arn't taking responsibilty for their children. We're seing a pattern of 15 year old having children and then they're kids then having children at 15 and then they're kids having chidren at 15. We don't have all of this resource to look after all these kids and it puts a huge burden on our economy as far a wefare, prisons etc. If we made a license to have children we could reduce this burden.

Allemonde, have you considered running for the leadership of a fascist political party?

Between 25-35 is the most fertile times for a human. Thats my point people who have kids at a young age haven't lived or have the education to be able to look after children so they go on welfare and end up draining money from others. If you wait to you're in your mid to late 20's to mid thirties. you'll have the education and age to know how to look after a child.


My cousin didn't have a child until she was 45. she then had 2 more and she can look after them very well. I don't plan to have kids until I know i'm both finacially stable and muture enough.

I absolutely agree that one should never want to have a child before 25 or so. I plan to wait until I have completed my Master's before I ever have kids.

But it's not the government's role to mandate this as law. I consider it my right to have a kid at 16. Dumb idea, but my right. Who knows. I just might be the best father ever at 16, and by the time I turn 19 I might be too old and would make a horrible father.

Allemonde, have you considered running for the leadership of a fascist political party?

No! Are you kidding? Maybe a Marxist/Leninist/Maoist party maybe.

The problem is it's not JUST the welfare expense- it's at the kids expense too. Having unqualified parents ruins childhood for those kids. They end up in orphanages or in foster care, or in homes that can't afford to feed them. I'm not saying strict requirements, but something basic, like a certain amount of money, or a job.

Yes especially when most children from broken homes end up in prisons.


P.S I apologize for my spelling. It gets a bit fuzzy when I try to type fast.

Allemonde, have you considered running for the leadership of a fascist political party?

Now, now, no name calling here.... ;)

Yes especially when most children from broken homes end up in prisons.

...and that's not what I meant. I meant that if we can prevent children from suffering in broken homes, we should.

...and that's not what I meant. I meant that if we can prevent children from suffering in broken homes, we should.

I'm all for trying to prevent broken homes. I'm not a horrible fascist/nazi person but I do recognize the need to reduce overpopulation and the over use of our rescorces. We should take steps to reduce our footprint on the planet. This means we need to reduce the amount of people born and show the need to take responsiblity for children.

I absolutely agree that one should never want to have a child before 25 or so. I plan to wait until I have completed my Master's before I ever have kids.

But it's not the government's role to mandate this as law. I consider it my right to have a kid at 16. Dumb idea, but my right. Who knows. I just might be the best father ever at 16, and by the time I turn 19 I might be too old and would make a horrible father.
The question is how are you gonna look after a child at 16 working at McDonalds making $5.15 an hour and never have the oppurtunity to get a better job due to lack of education. If your a woman who is gonna look after your child? That would mean that you'll have to get the Govt to fund your childcare which means it would have to raise taxes.

BTW does anyone else get sick of the people who go on Maury (http://www.mauryshow.com/) who have 8 or 9 kids trying to find they're babies daddies?

There's no way that can all be real. Seriously. Maury makes me sick.

But I also know that at nineteen, twenty years old, you aren't responsible enough to really truly care for kids as a parent. For one, there's a lot of "living" you need to get out of your system and two you're just barely an adult- you're still kind of a kid. How do you raise one at that age, let alone seven?
speak for yourself, I had both my kids before I was 20, they are well taken care of.

Yes, but you and your husband both work to support them.

Yes, but you and your husband both work to support them.

I know, and I do all the "mom" stuff too........where's my money?

I know, and I do all the "mom" stuff too........where's my money?

Both of you need to lose your jobs.

See, it's easy!

I believe in a social safety net

I don't.

I believe in a social safety net

We had those before the government came along. They're a thing called families. You might have heard of them, before the government got rid of them.

I don't.

Fantastic. So when you lose your job due to a workplace accident, spend all your savings on medical bills and still end up unemployable because of your new disability, you will refrain from being a burden on the state, and go live in the street?

Then we're good.

Fantastic. So when you lose your job due to a workplace accident, spend all your savings on medical bills and still end up unemployable because of your new disability, you will refrain from being a burden on the state, and go live in the street?

Then we're good.

See Greill's post above.

We had those before the government came along. They're a thing called families. You might have heard of them, before the government got rid of them.Wow! I don't have a family!? The government got rid of it!? Oh goody! No, instead of scraping money together to feed my children, I'll go buy some Prada jeans.:rolleyes:

See Greill's post above.

Yeah. And Greill can have the same response I gave you.

Wow! I don't have a family!? The government got rid of it!? Oh goody! No, instead of scraping money together to feed my children, I'll go buy some Prada jeans.:rolleyes:

Is that all you've got? Pathetic.

Is that all you've got? Pathetic.

It's all the comment merited.

OMG the government killed the family!

Um, last time I checked, the family is still alive and kicking thanks.

Your posts are made of fail.

It's gotten to the point where I'm beginning to get irritated everytime I see a pregnant woman or a baby. That's not good.

In my head I'm like "Jesus FUCK, woman, don't you know how many people are already on this earth, much less how many of them are starving and alone?! AND YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE COLLECTION."

Being bitter and angry loses its fun after a while.

Szanth,
if yer a guy, into guys, marry me?

:p
-Rafe
OOC

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (emphasis added)

really then?
can you then explain to me the permission of the US to allow the church, hatred, and defilement against myself; fellow left-handers, and fellow gay men?

or can you find a logical reason, under the law courts of ANY country, on why there are not 1/3 left-handed, 1/3 right-handed, and 1/3 ambidexterious people.

or for that matter 1/3 heterosexuals, 1/3 homosexuals, and 1/3 bisexuals, accounting for the objective fact women live longer then men.

and since we are on the subject, A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION:
If HIV/AIDS began in western europe, or north america, would there be a vaccine by now?

in other words, because the disease is so very rampent in Africa [yes, i know, citation needed] is that the reason there is no cure yet?

ruffle feathers? not my problem.
call people out for being a hyprocrite.
every.time.i.can.

[not you personally, you who found the USC law.]

Rafe
OOC

Both of you need to lose your jobs.

See, it's easy!

we did, in one year we went from making $100K to $17K.........

you lose your job, you get another one, you sell your house and move into the ghetto, you sell your car and buy a clunker, you quit eating out, you quit having cable.........you figure it out. TBH, we did have medicare for the girls for about 6 months, but then we moved up a bit and got health insurance for them. I went like 3 years without any, we are slowly working our way back up to where we were, but it's going to take a long time.

Maybe though, we should have just given up and popped out a few more kids.

Wow! I don't have a family!? The government got rid of it!? Oh goody! No, instead of scraping money together to feed my children, I'll go buy some Prada jeans.:rolleyes:

Obviously, figurative statements are a bit too complex for you. But let's look at what has happened over the years since the establishment of the welfare state. Divorces? Up. Single-parent households? Up. Delinquency and juvenile crime? Up. Abortions? Up. We've seen the elderly changed from being pillars of the community to nuisances to be stuffed in retirement homes. The family has been changed in definition from the extended family, with cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces to the nuclear family... and so many families don't even fit that definition. This is all because of the welfare state, which, while families demand some level of decency and respect, the government will give away money to get votes. So we will see more people taking the easy way out and abandoning their families and other community centers in favor of the state.

Obviously, figurative statements are a bit too complex for you. But let's look at what has happened over the years since the establishment of the welfare state. Divorces? Up. Single-parent households? Up. Delinquency and juvenile crime? Up. Abortions? Up. We've seen the elderly changed from being pillars of the community to nuisances to be stuffed in retirement homes. The family has been changed in definition from the extended family, with cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces to the nuclear family... and so many families don't even fit that definition. This is all because of the welfare state, which, while families demand some level of decency and respect, the government will give away money to get votes. So we will see more people taking the easy way out and abandoning their families and other community centers in favor of the state.

Let's assume that your statistics are correct, which is a huge assumption. You still have not shown that the dissolution of the family has anything to do with welfare, or that the welfare state causes extended families to break up and become solely nuclear families which then break up and become disrespectful leeches.

The rise in nuclear family groups as opposed to extended family groups, which you have yet to prove, may be due to many factors. These include immigration, emigration, scarcity of employemt in the area where the extended family lives, lack of adequate schooling facilities in the same area, travel, work taking people overseas for extended periods of time, and a whole host of other factors that would exist in any economic climate, including a free market utopia.

Let's not forget that the rise in things like divorce and abortion come from the lessening of the power of the state, which I would assume that you would agree with.

But it's not the government's role to mandate this as law. I consider it my right to have a kid at 16. Dumb idea, but my right. Who knows. I just might be the best father ever at 16, and by the time I turn 19 I might be too old and would make a horrible father.

But if you choose to have a child at 16, and then another at 17, and then another at 18, and then another at 20, and you can't provide for a single one of them, don't expect me to feel bad for you when you complain that you have no time to get a job. It would be your responsibility to get a job and do what you can to support your family, no matter how hard it may be. Why? Because you would have voluntarily taken on that responsibility when you decided to have all of those children.

While I will gladly pay to provide for children that idiots without the means to do so decide to have (as those children cannot provide for themselves and certainly did nothing wrong by being born), I see no reason to provide for the adults who think they don't have to act like adults. Maybe I'm a big mean meanie head for expecting adults to, you know, be adults or expecting parents, to actually be parents. If so, I'm happy being a big mean meanie head.


Both of you need to lose your jobs.

See, it's easy!

Forget losing your jobs. Just quit them and start popping out more babies. After all, there's no reason at all that a parent should actually try to provide for her own children, right? If someone else will do it for her, there's no reason for her to even consider the costs, right? All that matters is that she wants her "own lots of kids."


We had those before the government came along. They're a thing called families. You might have heard of them, before the government got rid of them.

Eh.....what?

But if you choose to have a child at 16, and then another at 17, and then another at 18, and then another at 20, and you can't provide for a single one of them, don't expect me to feel bad for you when you complain that you have no time to get a job. It would be your responsibility to get a job and do what you can to support your family, no matter how hard it may be. Why? Because you would have voluntarily taken on that responsibility when you decided to have all of those children.

But you don't refute the main argument--that the idea that people should be required to hold licenses to have children is an infringement of civil liberty.

While I will gladly pay to provide for children that idiots without the means to do so decide to have (as those children cannot provide for themselves and certainly did nothing wrong by being born), I see no reason to provide for the adults who think they don't have to act like adults. Maybe I'm a big mean meanie head for expecting adults to, you know, be adults or expecting parents, to actually be parents. If so, I'm happy being a big mean meanie head.

How do you propose to provide for those children without having to worry about providing for the parent? Fact is, the only way this could be done is if you forcibly took the children away from their parent's custody. For better or worse, this is what you appear to advocating.

But you don't refute the main argument--that the idea that people should be required to hold licenses to have children is an infringement of civil liberty.

I wasn't aware that this was a "main argument." I certainly wasn't arguing against it. What I don't see as an infringement of civil liberty is taking children - born human beings - away from parents who do not provide for and take care of them and placing them in better situations. People can say they have "rights" to their children all they want, and it won't change the fact that children are human beings themselves, and need to be raised by responsible individuals who will actually provide for and take care of them.

How do you propose to provide for those children without having to worry about providing for the parent? Fact is, the only way this could be done is if you forcibly took the children away from their parent's custody. For better or worse, this is what you appear to advocating.

If a parent won't take on the responsibility of providing and caring for his children, those children will be better off with someone who will. I see little to no difference between a parent who sits back and lets someone else provide for her children and one whose children are not provided for at all. The difference is not in the parent, but in the environment. In either case, the parent is doing nothing, and is obviously not prepared for the responsibilities of child-rearing. It is even worse when said parent continually, intentionally, and unnecessarily adds to his financial burdens while being unable to take care of himself and the family he already has.

But you don't refute the main argument--that the idea that people should be required to hold licenses to have children is an infringement of civil liberty.

The main arguments of this topic are the opinion that these people are abusing the welfare system and the opinion that their actions make them bad parents. Yours is just a sidestep ;)

The main arguments of this topic are the opinion that these people are abusing the welfare system and the opinion that their actions make them bad parents. Yours is just a sidestep ;)

It was the main argument of my post. Not of the thread. Which is why I've been only passively involved in the thread for the most part, and have only really dove in when the discussion started to lean towards suggestions of "parenting licenses", etc.