OMG, i'm usually not too keen on getting overly vocal about peoples choices when it
comes to family size, but good lord!!
did you hear of the woman that just gave birth to 8babies, with 6 already at home???
how on earth do they expect to feed all those children
i'll tell ya
you and i will be paying for those children, at some point, mark my words
medicaid, welfare, wic, whatever, how can anyone, short of a "donald trump" support that many
children
unless they are filthy rich, how else would you feed that many children
pay for new clothes and toys
college???
why?
i just don't get it
daniel comes from a family of 5, and he says times were sometimes hard on his family
i watched my aunt spend close to 100K on fertility, trying for years, and years to have a baby
but she never gave a thought to the fact that maby god didn't want her to have a baby
maby her place was to adopt a child that didn't have a family
but to have 15 kids??
as a parent of two, its sometimes hard to make sure both my girls get the attention they deserve
and its darn expensive to have even the two
sorry for the rant, it just pisses me off
now i'm not sayin' we should be like china with too many rules about family size, but theres gotta be
a happy medium here
tesa
Another fact: She is not married lives at home and takes fertility drugs. ???
I am afraid I just don't get what the parents were thinking letting this happen.
She will get her own television show for this. The childrens care will be paid for by every baby company till someone has 9. None of my dogs even had that many puppies.
I'm glad you brought this up. We discussed this in my philosophy class.
In the same day we read how people are upset with the woman who paid $50,000 to clone her dog. But the general consensus for the woman who gave birth to eight children was excitement.
Think about these two issues and how the general public views them.
A woman has eight children, already has 6, lives with her parents, single...we are paying for that crap, yet we are excited because she gave birth to eight at once.
Then we get mad at a woman who uses her own money to do clone her dog? Her own money, she paid for it. Whether or not it is considered "morally wrong" to clone a dog, it doesn't affect us nearly as bad as a woman who has 14 children.
The earth is becoming increasingly overpopulated and some countries have resorted to population control; such as China. From what I've heard...in cities you may have one child and in the country regions you may have two. I have also heard that not everyone in China is allowed to have refrigerators because the resources don't exist to make that many.
The Dugger family has 18 kids http://www.duggarfamily.com/ and they do not live off the state. They supported themself before their TV debut.
Woman who cloned her dog can do what ever she wants to do with her money. It's non of my business.
This woman who gave birth to 8 kids. I am curious, if she is living on state funds who paid for the fertility treatment? Something is not right with the story. Things are not adding up. As for being joyous about a woman giving birth to 8 babies, it's still non of my business unless my taxes are paying for it. Then I will have an opinion.
It is insane to have that many children. It seems there is another baby boom going on right now, everyone I know is pregnant, and 17 people at work are going on maternity leave too. It will eventually come to a point where we will see first hand how limited our resources are becoming, when we watch American children starving to death. Its been going on for years in the third world countries, we just are to arrogant to think it will never happen to us.
I like kids; and almost everyone should be able to experience raising their own little genetic copy; But at least limit it to just a couple of them.
The science that goes into artificial fertalization, cloning, and genetically modifying food is almost identical. I don't see much difference.
I've heard of teenage girls getting pregnant just so they can get thier own place and get on welfare so they don't have to live with their parents. These people who are messing around with nature will get what they deserve sooner or later.
i have also heard that the duggers don't use public assistance.
thats great
i as a tax payer appreciate that
but even without that, as a mother i just don't see how you can tend to so many wee ones!
you know what happens, remember my husband comes from a family of 5
the older ones have to take care of the younger ones
daniel was in the middle, but he remembers, many times, his older sister, and brother cooking, cleaning,
washing, and generally tending to the younger ones
and resenting it for much of their young lives
sad
tesa
I agree with stinkerbell that if we aren't paying for it, it is NONE of our business. The majority of people I meet can't imagine doing the things I do and I'm no superwoman. I just do what I can and am slowly losing the "box" I was given c/o society and our government. Aside from the whole overpopulation propaganda issue, many people have abilities different than our own. And, many people live their lives quite differently than mainstream. We spend our money mostly on food and books and spend almost all of our non-work time together as a family. I don't fit in with the "manicured nails" around me that can only handle 2 kids even when they send them to school all day. That doesn't make either of us wrong. Maybe they can't handle doing what I do just as I couldn't handle living life as they do. This site is such a weath of people who are living their own way, not trapped by societies norms, that it is an inspiration. I don't know anything of this woman's story more than what was said here. We have no right to judge. The government is already controlling every other aspect of our lives, PLEASE do NOT support people having control over the number of children we can have and when.
And personally, I don't think it is that awful for children to learn to work together as a family. Of course it has to be done appropriately by loving parents who are giving their all to their family as well. I don't think they should raise their siblings if there are parents around, but helping siblings, helping parents, helping out around the house, they SHOULD be learning that. My oldest children will undoubtedly have more responsibilities as they grow up because that is a natural part of being a family and birth order. As a parent, I know enough to know that that also means I must give them more priviledges accordingly to balance it out. Children will ALWAYS find something wrong with the way their parents raised them...that is part of learning from life.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " our "inalienable rights" as humans and Americans.
Now those words are meant for us as long as we do not impede on others. A person wants to have a dozen children and is able to pay for them and met their needs, and it is their desire, it is allowed. However, that said not everyone can raise a dozen children and others can not raise even one.
It is one of our business, unless We The People are picking up the tab. Then we can rant and rave all we want. However in this instance, I hold the medical community responsible for this, if this is on the tax payers dime. I would hope that if it is that state or government agency paid for this they get out tax dollar back from the medical practitioners, because IMO this would be medical malpractice.
Large families were not uncommon in the 20 & 30's. Partly because we were more of an agricultural community. The more kids the more farm help. There was nothing unusual for their to be 8-10 kids. But then again you had a full time mom. Now there is basicly part time parents.
While I believe how many children you want is your own business I personally believe, in our modern world, that it is irresponsible to deliberately set out to have more children, by the use of fertility drugs and embryo implantation techniques. I believe the medical team that performed the procedures for her are morally bankrupt. The embryos were implanted. That was a deliberate and irresponsible act, IMO.
I re read my last post, need to clear up my position a little. I think the planting of 8 embryos is medical malpractice. First this woman has children, therefore did not need imo to be artificially impregnated, however we still have no idea how she became pregnant the assumption is she was implanted, but the number of implants (if that is what it turns out to be) IMO endangered the health of the mother and babies. So what if it is not implants but she took a drug to help her become pregnant and for what ever reason she became pregnant with 8? I think what is needed is a full understanding of the events and not the tid bits we have. A miracle my even be here with pregnancy that was created under normal conditions.....Highly unlikely, but one never knows.
The news report I saw stated they were implanted, all 8 of them. :o But there is some fuzziness over that, because other sources say that would be very poor ethical practice.
News I saw said she came to the doctors who help deliver, mid pregnancy and could not answer the "How".
Many layers to this.
New meaning to: It's better to have 2 in braces than 5 that need them.
How many layers to this?...That's just what I'm trying to figure out. Single, unemployed immigrant, mother of 6 (2 of which have Autism) on welfare was implanted with 8 embryos....Oh this needs to be investigated. No wonder why we haven't "seen" the happy mom.
I agree, that it is a person's right to live their life as they please as long as it's not hurting anybody else. This includes putting a burden on anybody else. How many tax payers right now feel all positive about this situation? Can I see a raise of hands?
Something is seriously wrong. Come on journalist...time to dig...
Now, the 14 children involved in all this. #1...I feel for these little souls. #2...what's REALLY going on here?...Journalist....who paid for and why did they plant these embryos?
I'm not going to comment on where she's from. I just want some answers.
actually, being an only child, i grew up wishing for brothers or sisters
and i do understand about our past, my father comes from a family of 8
and i do agree, if you can raise that many happy/healthy/well adjusted children without
government help, more power to ya!
i just wish people would consider the childrens future
"better to have 2 in braces than 5 that need them" indeed!!
i didn't think you could get fertility treatments on public assistance, surly our government
wouldn't allow that? right ???
tesa
I've read that the mother is NOT a welfare Mom. Not yet anyways. :D
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=54089&catid=2
Her momma is not happy.
Good Grief!
Such malpractice in this.
Just to throw fuel on the fire. I heard on the news that she got divorced just one year ago and that the ex-husband is not the father of any of the children and she has no one else to support them. On the upside, she is a college graduate with a degree in child development, and she is currently going to school for a masters.
Quote from: StinkerBell on January 30, 2009, 07:05:11 PM
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " our "inalienable rights" as humans and Americans.
Now those words are meant for us as long as we do not impede on others.
But it does impede on others. This is why the libertarian philosophy cannot work. Let's say...I don't believe the government should be able to make me wear a helmet with a visor while riding my motorcycle. But what if I am riding my bike and I get hit in the face by a fat bug and lose control of my bike sliding it into a family of four and killing two? At that point it does impede on others because if I had been wearing the helmet in the first place it would never have happened.
Population control is just as serious. If everyone has 10 kids, we will run out of resources very quickly, other countries are already limiting children because this is a problem that DOES impede on others. It impedes on their "pursuit of happiness" because they no longer can get food.
Quote from: Sonoran on February 02, 2009, 12:54:11 PM
Quote from: StinkerBell on January 30, 2009, 07:05:11 PM
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " our "inalienable rights" as humans and Americans.
Now those words are meant for us as long as we do not impede on others.
But it does impede on others. This is why the libertarian philosophy cannot work. Let's say...I don't believe the government should be able to make me wear a helmet with a visor while riding my motorcycle. But what if I am riding my bike and I get hit in the face by a fat bug and lose control of my bike sliding it into a family of four and killing two? At that point it does impede on others because if I had been wearing the helmet in the first place it would never have happened.
Population control is just as serious. If everyone has 10 kids, we will run out of resources very quickly, other countries are already limiting children because this is a problem that DOES impede on others. It impedes on their "pursuit of happiness" because they no longer can get food.
Well lets see, you impeded on others when you slide into a family of four and killed two of them.
Can you give me an other example for this discussion? (I think you gave a bad example and am happy to have this discussion)
The argument that we will run out of food, hmmm. I guess I could argue back that maybe we need not to depend on others but depend on ourself and grow our own food. Food is a commodity and I think I can rant on about how only certain countries produce certain things is a mistake. I think diversity would serve everyone better then the current system. But the mere fact I get fresh fruit from a south american country when it is winter for me makes us lazy and unadaptable when there is a problem.
Well, when they stop making corn into corn syrup and ethenol and stop using all our other grains and produce to create alcohol by the barrel-ful, then MAYBE I'll start to listen to the overpopulation debate. Thanks for your input, stinkerbell. Self-sufficiency is the key.
The "libertarian philosophy" served our country well untill we started messing with the safeguards and standards of our government. Now it is so very unrecognizable from what it was that you cannot look at our current mess and say it wouldn't work because of how things run now. It did work; that is why people feared our country as an enemy. Socialism is NOT the answer when it has failed every other country and civilization that has used it. It is failing us already and yet we're pushing farther and harder towards it like that will solve our problems.
"Well lets see, you impeded on others when you slide into a family of four and killed two of them." Exactly my point. If I had been wearing a helmet it would never have happened. Therefore it is a justifiable law on the basis that it does prevent me from impeding on others.
But here are some other issues...drunk driving, texting while driving, smoking in buildings. By the way, try and examine the inverse of this argument. A person wants to smoke inside a building. We tell him he can't because it impedes on our happiness. At the same time we are impeding on his happiness because he can't do what he wants. So why is it that we win, and get our way and he loses? Because more people are being affected in a negative manner by his smoking than those who are being positively affected by his smoking.
Same thing with population control argument. Except it's more than a room full of people who are being affected.
Certain countries produce certain things because that's the only way they can gain a comparative advantage in trade.
Then I think about how the whole self-sufficiency thing works. In the 1800's, families would have large amounts of children in order to have help on the farm. It also adds security because if someone get's hurt there are other people to carry the burden. One thing parents would do was work on having enough money so that they could help their children get started on their own land when they were old enough. Then the process would start all over again. Families who farmed for a living were still dependent on other people. And often in debt for their land, which they would struggle to pay when there was a bad harvest. In this sense, the only way to be self-sufficient, is a reliance on an exponential growth of the population.
Being self-sufficient today is just as difficult as it was back when people were considered to be self-sufficient. If you examine the issue before the time period I have suggested you may argue that it was easier, but then, why would it be harder when land was free?
Keep in mind that the U.S. only has 12% of the world's arable land.
Well back to riding the motorcycle. Getting a drivers license is a privilege not a right and therefore you have to abide by the rules. The thing is automobiles/motorcycles where not an issue the forefathers had to deal with. This is why those laws are considered tort laws. However, having a dozen kids back in the day was a person right and probably common practice.
What I think you could argue is that there should be guidelines/laws about embryonic issues, seeing the technology is not addressed by the constitution. BUt then again, imo it is none of my business how many kids a person has as long as they can provide for them. With that said, knowing for information about the OP I consider what happened as medical malpractice. I also blame the women's parents for enabling her. Above all she is responsible for her actions too.
The way I see it is as soon as you start to limit who can have kids and how many you open a can of worms. Before you know it only the rich will be allowed to have kids because they can afford them and afford to game the system. Next they'll pass laws that people with freckles can't have kids then it will be people with curly hair and so on until some ideal is reached. Nature by it's very nature will find away to break any such laws and this will cause more problems. When there are enough people nature will limit the population. We don't need to do it. As for the food issue, any scarsity of food we have now is man made. There are dozens of former small farms around here that are now deserted. Less land is devoted to food production now than there was 50 years ago.
Guess What! Mom wants 2 million dollars for an interview! ahhhh
I agree Scott that we should NOT control how many kids a person has. However, we do have the power and capability to regulate reproduction technology. That is where I think certain laws could be passed.
Quote from: Squirl on February 02, 2009, 12:39:18 PM
Just to throw fuel on the fire. I heard on the news that she got divorced just one year ago and that the ex-husband is not the father of any of the children and she has no one else to support them. On the upside, she is a college graduate with a degree in child development, and she is currently going to school for a masters.
I think she will need it.
Cable news (I believe I was watching headline news today) said she was never married and her parents in the last year claimed bankruptcy.
I believe we can all agree that there shouldn't be any rules for how many kids, but there should be no artificial fertilization. that solves this problem. Although just cause there isn't rules about having kids doesn't mean people should stop using common sense.
I agree.. Artificially implanting embryos (especially outside of marriage!) is morally just as wrong as artificial contraception is, especially abortion in any form. Other side of the same coin. People selfishly trying to play God....
Affordable, basic health care; local organic produce and products; and an almost total breakdown of the technological, and commercial framework of this world; that is the only way in which I see the world taking care of population, health, degradation of family, and finally getting a sense for helping each other. The rich will still have what they have, and possibly more, and as written, there will always be poor among us, but if we learn to look within ourselves, and our communities, trust, and practice compassion, mercy, grace, and courage, then we can succeed. Until then, well, God help us, cause no political system can.
I agree that number of children should not be limited, but also that fertility drugs are used too often. I also think that abortion should be permitted, but that it is used too often. I think that we need to teach our children that when they have sex, they must be ready to be a parent that day. We aren't ever ready, but we must be willing, otherwise we end up with the "mistakes" that don't get enough attention, etc, and end up being takers. We as a society need to learn to take responsibility for our actions, regardless of the consequences. That doesn't mean not helping people who need it, with welfare, or personal donations. Until we all take care of each other, that we may take care of ourselves, and help out those that need it, that in our hour we will be helped. This is my prayer, that we may all (society) have this epiphany.
For the record, I have 4 children, some of my friends have four, my single father friend has 2, my sister-in-law has 6, and a good friend is from a family of 16 children. I met a family from the area here with 15, and 1 on the way. They sing together in performances, they are all homeschooled (God give that mother peace), they take care of their own, and yes, kids do end up raising eachother. But how is that any different from a family with 2 kids? I am an only child, by my cousins and I raised eachother. We had to do things like dishes, and laundry, but in my day (and in my house now) we call that "participation", and "chores". Kill the T.V., and put the kids to work. Guess what, they will complain about either thing! But at least if they grew up helping, and serving, they will have a better chance at helping and serving later in life.
Oh, our kids also read, bake, cook, garden, build, draw, sculpt, and clean up their own messes (most of the time ;D)
Shalom
Quote from: Ernest T. Bass on February 02, 2009, 10:55:55 PM
I agree.. Artificially implanting embryos (especially outside of marriage!) is morally just as wrong as artificial contraception is, especially abortion in any form. Other side of the same coin. People selfishly trying to play God....
I have been told that my mom should have sat on me when I was born, Andrew.... would that be natural rather than artificial? hmm
For some reason, I can never think of those great witty responses to your questions, Glenn... ??? :) I see no reason why that wouldn't be perfectly natural....
Jens, how can you say that abortion is not murder? No offense, but I can't rationalize it any other way...
I think people who can manage to survive a big family should go for it!!! They have alot of support and who cares really if they get a bunch of welfare? After all for every welfare caseworker trying to find a reason someone shouldn't get assistance 40 more people could be fed. By the time we figure out insurance and benefits and pay for the fat lazy state workers a lot more people could be fed. The govt. takes the tax money regardless and they are spending it on far far less pleasant things than feeding and clothing children in my opinion. And you know I hear a LOT more bitching about welfare parents whether they have one child or twenty than I do about tax dollars being spent on wars, and corrupt govt. workers. My daughters husband comes from a family of 15 children, god gave those children one by one to his parents who accepted and love them as well. His sisters each have 6-8 kids and several borthers still are not married or to young to have children. Here I am with ONLY ONE grandchild and her other grandparents have 27!!!! I have no competition as far as the cousins go, all the cousins are at the other grandparents house. By the way the adult children all work and contribute to the tax base even most of the younger ones work early on, yeah it takes more to get by but once they grow up they make up for it. And one of thier children is in a coma from a car accident several years ago, luckily there are PLENTY of relatives willing to pull together to make sure he lives withthe family rather than in an assisted nursing home, which would cost a pretty penny too. See god knew they would need that many kids to take care of that situation, and I just don't see how it can be so bad to have one's own army. It's good to see the posts from everyone I have not had internet at home for a number of months so that is why I have been missing.
Good way to come back, Tanya. Good rant for the other side.
I view most government jobs as being in the same class as welfare. They are parasitic as a fact -- there are only two types of income - that from people who work and that from parasitic jobs who derive their income from taking money from those who work. (Ref Murray Rothbard- Anatomy of the State) Wait a minute -- three types now --- they can just print all they want. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard62.html
I encourage family members to take the parasitic jobs anyway - as long as we are paying for it some of our own may as well benefit. They are dependable jobs - the government is not about to quit taking money from us so there should be no stigma attached. I like to see welfare used when necessary to help get someone back on their feet but not especially as a way of life.
Only problem with gov. jobs and welfare are the strings attached... They always get something out of the deal, and it's usually a lose of your freedom in some way.. :-\
Yes - they are not for me, but for someone who is not a self starter and motivated, I think they are good. Note that of course that blanket statement can't cover everyone. :o
Now... If I could only find one that paid me about $250 k per year ..... but alas. I am uneducated. d* [waiting]
When I got fired from the phone company, I applied for assistance. They said that my family of 4 would get $500. If we make any money, they start reducing that. Rent was over $1000! The system is designed to keep you doing as little as needed if you want help, that is wrong IMO. IMO, people should get assistance, not a hand out. Denmark's system of welfare and unemployment is actually much better sounding to me.
Ern, I do not agree with abortion on any level, but I agree less with the government telling someone what they can and can't do within the limits of their own body. Next thing, they'll be saying you have to be on life support, even if you don't want it, cause otherwise you'll be committing suicide which is technically against the law. We as humans try to play God way too often (at all is too often IMO), and so I do not agree with either, but I worry about legislation. In some very isolated cases I am ok with abortion, but the cold hearted side of me just says insha-alla...if God wills it. The thing is, I think God is tired of man trying to make up the rules of the game, and so he interferes less with our self-destructive behavior. I do that with my kids sometimes. If they don't listen, sometimes they just have to find out the hard way that yes, concrete is hard, you can fall out of trees, when your sister punches back it hurts, etc.
The fact that it is a part of the woman's body at that time, that is the only thing that makes me contest the illegality of the situation. Do I like it? No. But I don't like the alternative either. IMO, the world would be a better place without it, but we are not without it so the question becomes, how do we protect our people. Plus, to the gov, an adult woman is worth more than a fetus. Wrong I think, but like it or lump it, that is the way it is.
Tanya, at least you don't have to worry about it being your house that is trashed after family days! That's the other grandparents! Our friend of 16, there are 50 or so grand kids in that family. The calendar has a birthday every week!
Oh I have had a party here and I would have another. The kids are really great but there were a couple of adults who wanted to brawl after to much fun of course. No brawling allowed here I had to get a little mean!!! Now they call me mean grandma ;)
Life support can get to be a gray area nowadays, but abortion is crystal clear as human life is present before birth. Whether helpless and attached to the mother by an umbilical cord or not, it is still a living human soul. Killing a baby would clearly break the commandment, "Thou shall not kill"... I agree that the gov. shouldn't be dictating how we must live, but this isn't a mere man-made rule...
THREAD HIJACK....I am so very sorry but I can not help myself with this one.
Ernest....It should be Thou shall not murder.
Hebrew the language that most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause." The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.The punishment for murder was the death sentence.However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.
The Catholic Church has maintained the original interpretation of the commandment using the word "kill", because the word "murder" is too limited and legalistic to accurately describe the Hebrew word ratsach. As long as the act of killing is approved by a legal entity, it is not murder. Because of this, the definition of "murder" varies from one jurisdiction to another. For instance, if someone is killed (accidentally) in the course of committing a felony in Pennsylvania, the killer is a murder. So basically, according to the KJV translation the killer is in mortal sin, but only because he happened to be in PA.
That being said, the interpretation of the word "kill" is the same as "murder" from a basic point of view.. The dictionary translates murder as "The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought", and that serves us pretty well. No need to split hairs...
If you want to dig down to the nitty gritty of the literal meaning of the word "murder", though, it is an inadequate translation for ratsach.
hmm I thought it was "Ape shall not kill ape... " [waiting]
A Ford and a Lincoln are both cars, they are even both made by the Ford Motor Company, but they are far from being the same car. Although something may look like chicken, sound like chicken, doesn't mean it is chicken. If the intent of the law was to target killing in general, then God would have never told Israel to kill people. Apparently, the difference in perception of the word must be great. That is nothing new though. Throughout history the church has been known to change words of the Torah to words that more clearly fit their ruling stratigies when they write their versions. Cain murdered Able, he knew what he was doing, he performed the act with intent. One of the mitzvot is that you shall put walls around the roof of your house so that if somebody falls off who is a visitor, you will not have blood on your hands. By your logic, if that were to happen, that is considered murder. If you threw a baseball, and it came down and hit somebody, they died, that would be murder as well. Sorry friend, just doesn't jive with my way of thinking.
I'll not contribute to this hijack any more. Fini.
Certainly not all killing is condemned by the commandment. The bible itself and the Church further clarifies exactly what the word "kill" is referring to. Since the English language has no accurate word to translate the original Hebrew, the general word "kill" is used because it's the only word broad enough to fill in the gaps. Obviously it's not a sin to kill an animal for food, or to kill in self defense, etc. The ten commandments are very short and abbreviated, and you have to look a little deeper if you want to know exactly what they entail.
I have read that the hospital bill for the octuplets and Mom is estimated to be about $1.3 million. Why is it I don't think the money to pay that bill is coming from any health insurance company benefits?
smells like a bailout of sorts...
I wanna know how I apply for a bailout! I just heard on Hannady (sp?), that the woman recieved something like $250,000 from the government. Whether that was through multiple, over years type of assistance, or medical, or what, I don't know. Made me cringe big time though.
Her demands for cash to be interviewed, maybe her down fall. If she is on assistance and earns "x" amount of dollars during the month, I believe the state can garnish her money. Every state is a little different, but generally are the same.
Interesting point Stink... if she does get big buck interviews, book deals, etc. I believe she should have to reimburse the state, city, county for whatever gets paid out on her behalf.
In the UK it is illegal for a doctor to implant more than 2 embryo's at one time. Not that I am saying that a government knows best, but that simply does seem to make common sense. Multiple births of more than two children are rare when we don't tinker with nature. So that seems reasonable. ???
It wasn't all that long ago the people who are calling for birth control would be considered blasphemous!!!! Sinners!!! and the like!!! I had my grandbaby over today and she is so cute, I would take a dozen more like her in a heartbeat. Even two dozen. And even allt aht taxpayer craying wouldn't make me any less enthused. The more the merrier isn't that what the bible says?
The bible says to be fruitful and multiply, but that is meant in the context of marriage.
Seems to me Genesis 1:28 was meant as a blessing to couples to marry and have children, not a command to go and have baby after baby. Some versions include the words "fill the earth", some have other words... It seems to me we have done a pretty good job of filling the earth and the earth would be even more full if folks weren't aborting babies or using various methods of conception/birth control.
Add to all those children growing into adults, where are the resources to support them?
Someone needs to tell that woman it's just as much fun to just go through the motions.
Quote from: MountainDon on February 08, 2009, 10:12:48 PM
Add to all those children growing into adults, where are the resources to support them?
Perhaps God sent us a genius to solve all those problems, and we aborted him. Heck, maybe he sent us millions..
Quote from: rwanders on February 08, 2009, 10:27:30 PM
Someone needs to tell that woman it's just as much fun to just go through the motions.
;D ;D
Once again I think that if people are trained or train themselves in many trades and skills needed for survival, they will be much more prepared to survive in any part of the world rather than just near cities and large population areas. That would tend to make the world a much larger place. Yesterday we went through a relatively nearby area with 50 miles between service stations. The area would still be livable if people cared to live there.
Still... at least I know I have no need for that many kids. [waiting]
Quote from: MountainDon on February 08, 2009, 10:12:48 PM
Seems to me Genesis 1:28 was meant as a blessing to couples to marry and have children, not a command to go and have baby after baby. Some versions include the words "fill the earth", some have other words... It seems to me we have done a pretty good job of filling the earth and the earth would be even more full if folks weren't aborting babies or using various methods of conception/birth control.
Add to all those children growing into adults, where are the resources to support them?
Quote from: StinkerBell on February 08, 2009, 09:43:01 PM
The bible says to be fruitful and multiply, but that is meant in the context of marriage.
The three versions of the Bible that I have in my house don't say anything about marriage in Gen 1:28. In fact, that passage is before the garden of Eden, and thus, Adam and Eve are even created. To the best of my knowledge, marriage talk doesn't even come up (except for just saying they were married, concerning Noah and later) until after the Exodus.
I agree Don, it does seem we have done a good job, but the only reason we have filled the Earth so much, is that we continue to play God by keeping people alive when it is there time to die, and in the case of this situation helping people have more than they naturally would. I wonder sometimes, if all of the diseases we have now, are God's way of trying to say "Pharaoh! Let my people go!" It would give curious notion to not being able to find cures for the most vile of sicknesses now being suffered by so many.
Yeah, in times gone by population was controlled by an occasional plague that wiped out a bunch of people quickly... Nowadays everyone's sick, but in a chronic, lingering kind of way.
On marriage and multiplying... I believe it is best that people who want children be married, but more importantly it is not fair to children to not have 2 parents. It is also not fair to intentionally set out to have large families when the parent is single and doesn't have a clue as to where the financial support for raing all those kids comes from.
As for "playing God by keeping people alive"; it depends on where that line is being drawn and by whom. I personally do not see any point in being 90 years old, on oxygen, a feeding tube, a colostomy bag, etc. However, I am glad that we are able to detect precancerous conditions in the colon and do something about it with relatively little discomfort and cost, adding years to an active person's life. So if that is playong god, so be it.
As for plagues... isn't it a good thing we don't have to worry about things like bubonic plague, poliomyelitis or diphtheria to pick just three?
Maybe it's just me. ???
Most plagues would probably never have gotten out of hand if people knew about sanitation.. And while they sound horrible, fighting cancer for decades and finally dying an excruciating death of bone cancer is pretty bad too..
Quote from: Ernest T. Bass on February 09, 2009, 11:43:43 AM
fighting cancer for decades and finally dying an excruciating death of bone cancer is pretty bad too..
But what's the alternative?
I have a friend who has had an on and off again fight with colon cancer for over ten years. He's a fighter and has stated that on the whole it's been worth it. Worth it for seeing grand kids and for being able to still enjoy travel and exploration in the boonies. I am not sure I would have the same attitude. Actually I'm playing a wait and see game on the same thing. I have a yearly colonoscopy which always entails the removal of multiple polyps, multiple biopsies and so far multiple good news.
I'm not certain how I will react if/when the day comes that the doctor says, Uh-oh. That Uh-oh can go two ways... a removal of the entire colon right off because there are now cancerous cells, or the longer, slower chemo battle. What's better? To have to make choices or to have thins the "old way" where there were no choices, there was no early detection. Then, when cancer was found you ordered your coffin. Now you can make a choice.
Well, cancer is a whole different topic altogether... Personally, we don't feel that the medical industry does anything but prolong cancer. And why wouldn't they? It's a mega mega billion dollar business. Do you honestly think if an inexpensive permanent cure for cancer was discovered today, that the pharmaceutical companies would promote it, or even let it exist?
I have never heard of someone getting diagnosed with cancer at a young age, receiving conventional treatment and then living a happy healthy life to a ripe old age. It ALWAYS comes back in a matter of years, sometimes less. All the treatment does is drive it deeper into the body. First it'll be skin cancer, then colon, etc. However, the treatment for the skin cancer goes down as a success in the record books, even if the cancer resurfaces somewhere else in the body and kills the person a year later.
I think the only way to prevent cancer is to treat yourself like you have it, and live as natural and healthy as possible.
Most everyone will probably disagree, but that's my take on it. ;)
I was diagnosed with cancer (osteosarcoma) at 14 years old. I'll be turning 28 in March. Chemotherapy and surgery saved my life. I have had no recurrence in over 12 years.
My ex's mother had breast cancer at 28 years old, she is living a happy healthy life, and I know of no problems for her (she is 56 now).
I'm sure our 6 year old daughter would disagree that cancer treatments don't work.
I'll take back what I said... :) However, I have known many many cancer victims and you are the first that I know of to make a seemingly full recovery. I hope you continue to be blessed with a healthy long life!
I understand where you're coming from though. I know lots of people that seem to fight cancer for years and never get better. I had an employee fight brain cancer 4 times in 10 years, she had to work through it or the insurance company would drop her. Got so bad near the end she came in and I just had her sleep in the backroom, instead of working...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4569991/Parents-find-cure-for-sons-untreatable-blood-disorder.html
Speaks of possible cancer cure also.
Also - prostate cancer was starting to return on my dad - My sister put him on Essiac tea a few years ago and no more problems.
Cancer is a whole other topic... back to where we were with the too many kids rant....
My opinions, in case anyone wants them, and even if you don't:
1. Fertility treatment seems ridiculous and irresponsible for a single woman with six kids already. I don't like those kind of fertility treatments because they depend on embryos created outside of the human body, many of which will not be used, and will therefore be killed.
2. Abortion is also wrong. It is not because we are simply destroying any life that it is wrong. After all, if you kill germs on your kitchen counter, no one would hold it against you. It is because you it is killing a soul, a being created in the very image of God. It is not the woman's own soul she is killing (though it most likely ends up maimed, too) when she aborts.
3. I think the gal is seriously messed up... but not because she wants a big family. I want a big family too, and would be thrilled if we had more kids. However, it is unfair to these kids that they are born into a family without both a mother and a father. For the mom's sake as well as for the kids' sake, I hope that someday some really brave guy will step up to the plate and help her raise her brood, but she's gone about it all the wrong way, and pretty much any fellow would be scared off by a single mom with fourteen kids, and reasonably so. There is something that my husband has with our kids that I can't imitate or replace...and likewise, there are the things that I can do for/with the kids that DH cannot. Every kid needs a mom AND a dad...
4. I confess. When I heard about the octuplets, my first thought was, "Wow! That's amazing! What a design that the human body can adapt to situations, and survive them, and sometimes even thrive in spite of them!" That is nothing that we did ourselves, of course, but still completely amazing, even if I think this woman is irresponsible and perhaps a bit "touched in the head", as my grandma used to say.
It sounds to me, at times, as if people are quite positive that just because kids grow up with only one parent they are doomed. My wife and I are just two of the many kids I know from "broken" houses that grew up quite well adjusted, thank you very much. It is also a grand fallacy, IMO, that society has to say that marriage before birth either does more good with regard to a child's mental/emotional/physical health than the alternative. The important part is that the two parents (or even just the one) are both loving and compassionate. In fact, I have seen more people turn into maladjusted individuals after growing up in a "normal" house, than most single parented children I have ever met.
It deeply pains me, that so often the situation of relationship between the parents is held in higher importance than the relationship between parent and child. A piece of paper does nothing to bind people in this world. If people are "married", everyone automatically assumes that 1. they love each other, and 2. it will be a better environment to raise a child in. With all due respect to everyone here who thinks contrary, that attitude is absolutely abhorrent to me. It is despicable, and the plank should be pulled from your eyes first. God's sanctity of marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with what society has made it, in fact it never has. Just as life begins at conception, so does true marriage begin when two commit their hearts to each other. Sometimes that is upon first meeting, sometimes it never happens, yet if people get "married" some how they are doing "the right thing" or following "the right order". If in no other way you can accept this, simply look at the rate of divorce, and single parents.
Yes there are some things that a mother can't replace from a father, nor a father for mother, yet grace is extended to us all and it is up to us to use it or not.
I don't agree with the whole embrionic implanting thing, and pray for blessings to the children, but who are we to pass judgement on another whom we don't even know? She may be the best parent in the world. None of us are so whole as to even be discussing her "good" or "bad" points or decisions.
To this struggling woman, her children, and all of you,
May the Lord God, Creator of all, have mercy on our poor broken hearts. Only he can mend them, and fill them. May the Father of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob bless you and keep you, make his face shine upon you, may he raise his countenance to you and grant you peace.
Shalom
Jens,
I'm not trying to put down single parents or kids of single parents, by any means. I am a child of a single mom. I am just saying that things work a lot better when there are two parents, and it's one thing if someone ends up parenting a child as a single parent, and an entirely different matter if she is intentionally going out and implanting embryos, MULTIPLE embryos even, with no real plan on how or what she's going to do after they are born. Disagreeing with her choice shouldn't be imputed as judgement... only God is her judge. I'm just saying it is going to be very hard for her to take care of and support all those kids herself.
I can't see her controlling and successfully raising that many kids and look for them to become some of the states and communities problems of the future. She is already messed up. What leadership or example do they have?
I feel so bad for those children! Crazy mom even gave 2 of them the same name. Hopefully a full investigation of the physician involved will help avoid something like this from happening again.
Quote from: glenn kangiser on February 08, 2009, 11:39:39 PM
Once again I think that if people are trained or train themselves in many trades and skills needed for survival, they will be much more prepared to survive in any part of the world rather than just near cities and large population areas. That would tend to make the world a much larger place. Yesterday we went through a relatively nearby area with 50 miles between service stations. The area would still be livable if people cared to live there.
Still... at least I know I have no need for that many kids. [waiting]
I'm going take a wild guess and say there wasn't much water in that 50 miles either! ;)
If the population CURVE keeps going the way it is we will see the potential problem very soon. If the Owens Valley residents take back THEIR water and Az. and Utah decide they want more Colorado River water Southern California will be a war zone similar to the Gaza Strip!
And as for the lunatic that says she had a "Dysfunctional Childhood" but wants to raise 14 children in the same household!!!!!!!! No amount of college is going to fix that warped mind. Shes a parasite and should be dealt with accordingly! Her back was hurt to bad to work but not give herself 9 pregnancies (counting miscarriages) PLEEEEAAASSSEEE! And as far as the doctors and the hospitals,...We all know what would have happened if they "DENIED HER RIGHT TO BE A MOTHER"!!!!! ::) ::)
I just watched Dateline,...........Still think she is out of touch with reality and a classic "WACKO" [crz]!
Not a lot of water out there, Cordwood, but there were wells. A better example - Our county - most livable -but not many people. 13 people per square mile but most are actually in town.
I don't think children need two parents or even one for that matter. My grandma did a fine job of raising her children, all four of them after her husband died off on her during the depression, then her oldest daughter and her husbad died and she raised all of my cousins too all alone by herself years and years ago. Parents are over rated!!! As far as having a bunch of kids around it is a great thing, and the bible is just one of those books, dammned if you do and dammned if you don't. Bye the way there are a lot of people worldwide who get along fine without the "necessities" our society vaules but for heavens sake I jsut can't see calling myself a god fearing person and then say well abortion is wrong, having to many kids is wrong, killing off the already dying is wrong, I could go on. The point I am trying to make here is why does anyone else care other than these families immediate support systems How can it possibly be MY business if some woman I have never met is impregnated with fetuses? let alone how many, or if another has an abortion why would I even want to know that? I have plenty of problems I am not about to take on the morallity of others. My own is solid as long as I keep repeating the part about lead me from temptation over and over and over.
I thought invitro fertilization was VERY EXPENSIVE? How could this mother afford this in the first place? Who's paying the physician bill? Who's paying the hospital bill?
WE ARE!?! ???
She received a $100K settlement from some kind of dispute or on the job injury, and spent it on becoming a single Mom. More or less that's it without the fine details.
Oh...this is just crazy...$...Tanya I agree with your philosophy...however...I did hear about the settlement...$... and can't help but wonder where this doc was coming from... $...this mom is obviously not in her right mind...$...why would any physician go along with this?...$...it's not a good situation for mom and especially not for those children!!!!!!!!
Now she's asking for donations on her website.
sorry for not participating more, since i'm the one who started this thread, but have
been uber busy with many projects, but none the less keeping up with
this story
i saw she had a website, i think i heard it on the news. personally, i just cant stand
any more of it.
shalom jens! i, at first did offer up prayers for the safety of her new babies, and herself,
but this business about her getting public assistance is too much.
i know we all have choices to make in life, and daniel and i choose NOT to have any more
children, because we can barley afford the ones we have. to bring more into the world
and to know we'd most likley have to go on public assistance is wrong
if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em
"touched in the head" she might be, but do the people of california have to pay for it?
do i have to pay for it? 'cause you know your tax dollars go everywhere, not just the state you
live in, eventually, my hard earded over taxed butt is gonna be payin' for her kids, before its
all said and done
my heart actually goes out to the people of california
tesa
and i'd like to add another thought, you know, i'm not really for population controll either, but
i think theres gotta be a limit to the number of children the state will care for if a woman/couple
continue to have babies they can't afford
i understand poop happens, and the system should be there to help folks who need a break/help,
but at what point does the system go broke helping people who have so many children they
can't feed them without help??
what would happen to those children if a disaster strikes? is that woman prepared to feed her
children if we have some sort of doomsday thing happen??
i am
ike proved it to myself, that i can tend to my family in times of need WITHOUT the government
we never got one MRE, we didn't need FEMA, the only thing we needed was a wee bit of ice, i lived
for 5 days on three bags of ice, for gods sake
i didn't even think about going into a store after ike 'till like day 6 or 7, i think
my point is, i can tend to my own, without government help, even during a major hurricane, and we
got a direct hit (literally, the eye passed 24 miles from my hone!)
lets see her tend to her children WITHOUT government help, and see how much she likes having babies!
after watching your children go hungry, maby she'll reconsider wanting such a big family
tesa
I think it is horribly mean to say that the govt. should not help with the children. After all they are citizens, maybe they don't pay taxes yet but when they grow up chances are they will pay plenty. I can also see why a person would choose to have several embryos implanted, I am going to advise my own daughter to do jsut that!!! They want a large family but she will be lucky to survive even one more pregnancy why not make it count? And they don't believe in birth control so saying she shouldn't get pregnant again isn't an option because the doc already said it. Anyone can have a disaster and when that happens the govt should help out if they can whether one child or a dozen is involved. This mean spirited taking out our social ills on large families is a political game of status baiting, much like it is all a certain races fault, or sexes fault, no!!! The reason our social ills are so intense is because instead of stepping in to help others people would rather complain. I wonder WHAT Jesus would say when he returns, did he ask to much of his followers when he said feed the hungry, care for the ill, shelter the homeless? MUST HAVE!!!
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be for doctors irresponsibly planting embryo's into people who expected the state to take care of them. Jesus did not say "Grab the turkey baster, be fruitful, become many and indiscriminately fill the earth."
In the old days - my grandparents days, it was common for families to lose the children they couldn't take care of. Survival of the fittest - not welfare. My great grandparents lost 5 of ten children - the state didn't help.
Quote from: tanya on February 13, 2009, 06:38:02 PM
I think it is horribly mean to say that the govt. should not help with the children....
Well, first of all let me say that will never happen; the children will be taken care of by the state.
I hear all the people saying things like that, as their way of saying they believe it to be ridiculous that a single mother of six should have gone had IVF performed at all, let alone for the number 8. That is playing God, or at least meddling in the natural way.
And I'll go further out on this limb with a saw in my hand, and state that anyone who does not believe in birth control should not practice artificial means of getting impregnated. That would seem to be an inconsistent belief; this parts okay to meddle with, but not that other thing. ???
Quote from: MountainDon on February 13, 2009, 08:35:43 PM
And I'll go further out on this limb with a saw in my hand, and state that anyone who does not believe in birth control should not practice artificial means of getting impregnated. That would seem to be an inconsistent belief; this parts okay to meddle with, but not that other thing. ???
I'll jump out on the limb with you and agree 100%. :)
See that is what I mean about mean spirited. Where do you suppose turkey basters came from anyway? where there is a will there is a way and that is because god says so!!! And furthermore. I jsut smile and laugh when I hear people yelling and screaming about taking care of little helpless newborns what a bunch of awful negativity!!! And no one ever did say Jesus said for the state to feed, dress, house and cure the ill, now did he??? No that is a personal directive for each individual to do what they can to help the less fortunate and sometimes that is simply to say nothing if you have nothing nice to say. That mother should be spending her time loving her children and not worrying about the gossip and hate mongers. She now has a bunch of kids and nothing is going to change that now is it? So then.... Bye the way there is plenty of real government misapplication of funds that could VERY WELL go to take care of some youngsters if we didn't have a bunch of ewwwww icky types sitting on thier butts collecting a paycheck for what? For every single employee sitting at a desk in the welfare office that person's pay and benefits would feed two hundred people with the top food stamp allotment. EACH MONTH so maybe instead of blaming those who really do need to eat we should ask why are there a bunch of no good workers sitting around making it impossible for their clients to get assistance when it is simple enough for the govt. to see who is making money, who is poor, who is below a certain income level. They do it at the federal level for everyone IRS tax returns so why shouldn't they have the same online system where if you are poor you type in your info and the food card gets charged up why do they have to have the most dispicable types sitting in a chair waiting to tell these moms that they are not getting any assistance beca8use a form wasn't filed properly or on time. FYI 98 percent of all social assistance dollars go to the GOVT. workers, only 2-3 percent ever makes it to the people who really do need it. SO when you start to complain about people needing assistance ask yourself is that the best you can do?
QuoteAnd no one ever did say Jesus said for the state to feed, dress, house and cure the ill, now did he???
No. No argument there.
So I guess the state is off the hook then? The state shouldn't get involved in providing health care, food stamps low income rent controlled housing and all that other stuff the government insists on providing. Glad we got that out of the way.
Seriously though, looking at a couple pertinent points. She already had 6 kids. She had a $100,000 settlement. She could have used that money in any number or ways that would have brought more good to her family.
Just yanking your chain, Tanya. I was only trying to get you to express yourself freely. You seemed as though you were having trouble communicating your true feelings. :)
I for one think you are right on some points. We have way too many government workers, and many of them should not be such a burden on the public either, but it seems the chickens may be coming home to roost... [waiting]
With all of the citizens stopping building etc. due to the current financial ripoffs, there is not enough money coming in to government, and they are already laying them off around here.... but the parasites are now making noises about increasing taxing, ticketing and fining the public to continue to support their bloated lifestyles. I think we should tar and feather them and run them out of town.
Well I can tell you this much you can't even SAY tar and feather them in a state welfare office... that is threatening a public servant 10 year felony!!! They sure do deserve it though. It's well posted too, they are afraid that is because they suck.
I think that woman used her money that $100,000 wisely. Those babies will bring in a lot, just the tv shows and stories but on top of that she has 8 babies if one gets tired of being held she can pick up another one and so on. There are plenty of wealthy people who have children and OK maybe they can feed them well but then what? Do they take an actual interest and responsibility in their well being. SOme do others take a far keener interest in the well being of their pocket book. One thing that really ticks me off is parents who refuse to help thier kids with college and refuse to let their kids file for financial aid on thier own all the while collecting the earned income tax credit for them while at the same time kicking them to the curb.
I don't know... My parents have 9 kids, and THEY think it is absolutely physically impossible that a single mother could even come close to raising 8, well adjusted same aged kids, not to mention the six young'uns that already need her. I don't know how it could be considered a responsible move in the childrens' best interests to try and raise so many at once. But then again, there's nothing we can do about it and our opinions are going to vary, so it's kind of a mute point/beating a dead horse.
Well you could use that same arguement for any kids who attend a child care center on a daily basis then. They are there most of the waking hours, all with children thier own age cohort, and with no more than 1 teacher for five kids even in the best centers. So are we to day that kids who go to child care centers are less likely to be well adjusted? NO in fact with proper support and training one person does do it all. And just think of when they are school age, 1 teacher to 30 or more children. I already know it is irresponsible to send children into tht kind of "learning" environment but I rarely hear ANY talk of misused tax dollars there, and most of the nation raises their children in that very same environment. It is totally irresponsible.
[deadhorse] There you go, Andrew.
Well, we have some pretty strong views on daycare as well as public school, and "well adjusted" is a relative term by today's standards to say the least. Like I said, we're not going to agree, but it doesn't really matter...
Glenn, where do you find all of your appro-pro smillies? ;D
Quote from: Ernest T. Bass on February 14, 2009, 12:04:35 AM
I don't know... My parents have 9 kids, and THEY think it is absolutely physically impossible.....
I like your parents Andrew. :)
Yeah, me too....
;)
Well are you saying people shouldn't have kids unless someone can pay to feed, house, clothe, pay for health care, AND stay home with them AND educate them? I don't necessarily think that is a bad option. BUT perhapes we could have govt. sponsored sterilization for all, and mandate it for the poor. Enough beating around the bush.
I do agree that there are too many government employees and they do too little to earn the money they are paid. NM has a higher per capita state employee rate compared to the national average and we pay them more than average as well, when everything is taken into account. Which is something when the rest of the citizens struggle along on less than average.
Unfortunately with layoffs increasing the numbers of unemployed the state une,plyment offices are hiring more people to handle the volume.
So let this be the "too many children AND too many government employees" rant.
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 12:34:34 AM
Well are you saying people shouldn't have kids unless someone can pay to feed, house, clothe, pay for health care, AND stay home with them AND educate them? I don't necessarily think that is a bad option. BUT perhapes we could have govt. sponsored sterilization for all, and mandate it for the poor. Enough beating around the bush.
That is a government sponsored plan but in general it is hidden in other agendas and pushed more in poor foreign countries, Tanya.
Obama just OK'd sending money to other countries - primarily black for just such type programs - not necessarily sterilization, but abortion.
I don't know the details - just skimmed over it shortly after his inauguration.
OH OK, now just to be fair I have worked with some lovely, decent and hard working govt. people. BUT most of them are lazy arrogant, even evil, despicable characters worse than any low life I have ever met. I bet they were raised by parents who could afford to feed them or they would have died by now. To bad.
And I also have worked with some that were good --
My wife, son and brother, my mom, and my dad was before he retired....all government workers... is that too many?
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 12:34:34 AM
Well are you saying people shouldn't have kids unless someone can pay to feed, house, clothe, pay for health care, AND stay home with them AND educate them?
I think that is the way God intended. That's how Jesus was brought up.. Unfortunately, this is often not possible in today's society. Should people have kids if they are going to have to use public school? Of course. That doesn't make it a good option that that you should be comfortable using.. Should you have kids if you are going to remain single, use all kinds of government welfare and stick them into society to be brainwashed into good little rebellious sheeple? I think you should think twice...
I also think that if we pay for abortions, and I think we should, no one should be forced to take on a child they cannot. BUT if we are going to PAY FOR IT then we should also pay right then and there for sterilization, at the very least voluntary sterilization. Especially for deadbeat dads.
Well, perhaps people ought to practice a little more self-control and use their sexuality responsibly like God intended, then we wouldn't have to go meddling in areas we are not meant to go.
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 12:34:34 AM
Well are you saying people shouldn't have kids unless someone can pay to feed, house, clothe, pay for health care, AND stay home with them AND educate them? I don't necessarily think that is a bad option. BUT perhaps we could have govt. sponsored sterilization for all, and mandate it for the poor. Enough beating around the bush.
Not "someone"; the parents!!
I do say that people should not have children unless they
themselves can pay to feed, house, clothe them and look after their basic needs. That includes waiting until they are mature enough to begin that family; for some that could be fairly young, others will never be mature enough to raise a family. Of course sometimes crap happens and one or the other parent end up as single parents. Sometimes that occurs as a result of a personal disaster, sometimes it occurs because of immaturity in one or both of the parents.
QuoteSingle mother Suleman, who already had six children by IVF, used a fertility doctor to give birth to her babies.
The new pictures surfaced on the day it emerged she had fled her house in Whittier, California, to go into hiding with her older children after receiving death threats.
She has even taken on the services of a security firm to ensure the safety of her family.
Earlier this week, it was revealed that Miss Suleman has three disabled children
Despite previously insisting that she will not be claiming benefits, her publicist confirmed that she already receives food stamps and child disability payments to help feed and care for her six other children.
But he would not disclose the nature of the disabilities, or the type or sum of the payments.
The news came as it was revealed that all of Suleman's children were conceived with help from the same fertility doctor - Dr Michael Kamrava.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1142566/The-mother-baby-bumps-Octuplets-mum-bares-ENORMOUS-stomach-just-days-giving-birth.html
ooops I forgot to finish my thought..... when crap happens, then there should be a social safety blanket. But only then.
"think that is the way God intended. That's how Jesus was brought up.. Unfortunately, this is often not possible in today's society. Should people have kids if they are going to have to use public school? Of course. That doesn't make it a good option that that you should be comfortable using.. Should you have kids if you are going to remain single, use all kinds of government welfare and stick them into society to be brainwashed into good little rebellious sheeple? I think you should think twice..."
I think that a lot can go wrong when you have a family. One of my best friends had four children, when her husband fell off a roof. He is brain damamged and she was left to raise them all alone, with his brain damaged input adding to the pleasure. I don't even think there should be welfare, there should be a federal system that pays a stipend to everyone who isn't living at or above poverty level. Health care coverage should be totally financed, after all it is the govt. that let that mess go where it is. No one in their right mind would think that system can help. And it has been my experience that single parents are doing a better job than the married ones a lot of times, both single moms and dads. That whole married thing just adds a lot of stress and tension and a lot more accomodations too. As faar as the presumption that god wants us to raise our children without ever leaving them to another to teach or care for is not one I can buy into. God knows it all, planned ALL of this and it is for our own good like it or not!!!
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 01:00:23 AM
...I don't even think there should be welfare, there should be a federal system that pays a stipend to everyone who isn't living at or above poverty level...
And where does that money come from?
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 01:00:23 AM
God knows it all, planned ALL of this and it is for our own good like it or not!!!
For our own good, yes. Planned it, no.
I don't recall anything in the bible about responsible sexuality. That is a good one ;)
I see no reason why that woman and her children shouldn't be cared for. I think we are paying a lot more to a lot less worthy causes. And I think it reflects very badly on this country when we bicker and fight over who is going to take care of the children. There should be no question that when a child is in need someone will step up, ever and since we are a nation dependant on the govt. for these things then it is natural to assume they should pay. But if we had universal health coverage, the costs would be shared accross the nation and not only would the mom be blessed but so would we all. It is jsut so weird how the welfare issue is such a hot button issue when so much more money is going to the states mis administering the funding. A LOT more money will go into state workers pockets THIS YEAR ALONE than will ever ever go to take care of those children. It's a smokescreen issue when the real one should be govt. acountability.
We ALL pay taxes, even when they are not income taxes. I know the big families I know are paying enough just in taxes on beer cigs and gas to take care of the rest who are not old enough to drive, smoke or drink yet. As for the stipend of course that would come from taxes but the system would be automated and far cheaper to administer. So instead of 2 to 3 percent going to the people who need it 70-80 percent would be and the state workers could then hurry up and drop dead.
As far as the "married thing" just adding a bunch of stress, I'd say you're doing something wrong... A holy, trustful marriage is the anchor that holds a family together. God designed it that way. With the maturity levels out there nowadays, a good working marriage is a hard find, but it is not meant to be that way. Responsible, selfless parents are the root of a great family. I'm not saying you can't raise great kids with only one parent, but the odds of finding a great single parent who couldn't get along with his/her spouse are unlikely. Of course, there are always exceptions. I'm speaking about the vast majority of dysfunctional families out there.. Death of a spouse is another story..
If there was universal health care as, Nadya Suleman would never have had 8 embryos implanted. If there was universal health care it is a near absolute certainty she would not have been eligible for any IVF with 6 kids already having been born to her.
Well maybe she could have gone to another country for the IVF. As far as people not being in healthy relationships because they are doing something wrong well DUH! but that IS life. ANd I think the bible is against masterbating too, which would be responsibly handling sexuality, but... So there isn't much to be done.
Quote from: Ernest T. Bass on February 14, 2009, 01:15:52 AM
As far as the "married thing" just adding a bunch of stress, I'd say you're doing something wrong...
I agree wholeheartedly. Marriage is not a guarantee for familial bliss, for certain. However, being a single parent is not all that easy either, from what I have seen. If you look at marriage as a source of stress and misery, there is something basically wrong with the situation. And I feel sorry for the children caught in between the parental relationship.
- married 32 years and one year in sin before that. Same woman. :)
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 01:21:39 AM
Well maybe she could have gone to another country for the IVF.
This is getting dumb.
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 01:11:01 AM
I don't recall anything in the bible about responsible sexuality. That is a good one ;)
Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Corinthians 7:3-5)
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. (Matthew 19:8 )
In this passage and elsewhere, Jesus indicated that those who divorced and married another person were committing adultery.
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)
Well I am pretty sure jesus brought a whore to the ressurection. Now you see what happens the bible says to much. Mary Magdeline, so god does judge but my guess is those who bicker and fight over feeding hungry, ill, HELPLESS, children, and who have the audacity to preach the lords will, baiting with oppressive views, and inuendo will get the wrath. Because that is sacreligious.
If Mary Magdeline repented from her past sins and believed in God's mercy of course she would be saved. Are you saying Jesus had no problem with her prostitution?
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 01:33:32 AM
Well I am pretty sure jesus brought a whore to the ressurection. Now you see what happens the bible says to much. Mary Magdeline, so god does judge but my guess is those who bicker and fight over feeding hungry, ill, HELPLESS, children, and who have the audacity to preach the lords will, baiting with oppressive views, and inuendo will get the wrath. Because that is sacreligious.
Nobody's saying children should not be fed! Just that parents need to be more responsible and think ahead a little bit.
Yes!!! I am saying it right now jesus had no problem with her prostitution. And the reason why he had no problem with it was because he walked with god in love and that was the entire reason for his time on earth, not to judge, not to lead, not to be all special, to SHOW people that gods way is real!!! ALL that is aasked of each of us is to love one another and how it through our actions. Even if he did have a problem with it, which he didn't, he never would have preached to her about it, he would have shown her the way through love and fellowship and she would also sit with god. As far as parent thinking ahead a little bit, I bet there are more than a few who feel they did think ahead who have recently lost jobs homes etc. imagine how they feel now with this status welfare issue.
I am going to bed now. I have to say a few rosaries so I don't go to hell if I die in my sleep. And I am babysitting tomorrow so I need my rest.
Don; She only had six implanted, Two split to make the eight.
I feel this woman should be hounded not because she wanted more children,....Because she SELFISHLY wanted more children. She has a wanton lust for controlled affection that she feels she can only get from her own children, Not for the love she HAS for the children but the love she WANTS from the children and IMHO that's WRONG!!!
The type of pregnancy she wanted and ultimately got is very risky and often ends up with very disabled children, If half don't end up with brain or other deformities it will be a rare case.
To say these children were gifts from God would also be saying the children thrown off the bridge by their mother were somehow gifts he wanted back?!?!?! d* At some point people need to realize God is not doing all of this and the person doing it should take responsibility for THEIR actions and not cop out and call it "Gods Will"!
I am not saying these children don't deserve the best care. I am saying some guidelines should be set to keep this from being a growing trend and keep it an isolated case.
Quote from: cordwood on February 14, 2009, 07:53:42 AM
Don; She only had six implanted, Two split to make the eight.
Correct. I misspoke.
Also correct on everything thing else you said cordwood.
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 01:46:04 AM
Yes!!! I am saying it right now jesus had no problem with her prostitution.
Perhaps you missed my quote:
Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)
Do you want it in God's own words? "Thou shall not commit adultery."
This does not only refer to infidelity inside of marriage, as there was a double standard in the definition of adultery in Patriarchal Israel for men, adultery meant sex with another married woman. For women, adultery meant sex with any other man
Had you given you heart to her Don? Then don't worry about the whole "one year in sin part", that whole thing has pissed me off ever since I started hearing it. I just wanna tell people that think that way, and then put down someone else to take a long walk off a short bridge!
You guys are cracking me up here! Glenn, you had me rolling a couple of pages ago, can't remember what it was, or where it is, but...
"This does not only refer to infidelity inside of marriage, as there was a double standard in the definition of adultery in Patriarchal Israel for men, adultery meant sex with another married woman. For women, adultery meant sex with any other man"
Sure is nice of man to decide what God means when he says things so simple, innit.
If we had UHC, she would not have been able to get an appointment for IVF. There would be too many people with cuts and bruises in front of her, "Well, I just sneezed. Never could go to the Doc before, but now that it's free..."
I think she actually invested that $100k pretty wisely, when you consider the returns of endorsements, advertisements, documentaries, and especially once she turns out to be an approved Saint, whose story gets made into a movie about all the cruel judgmental people out there, and that the only ones who "cared" were the government that allowed it. Has a certain ring to it. Of course, she could have just spent $100 on a Sunset Blvd boy instead!
I still have never read the part in the Bible that says masturbation is a sin. With the danger of getting lynched in mind here, I think Paul was a bit of a closet homosexual, who was generally sexually repressed at the same time. At least, that is what I get from reading him. I don't think there is anything wrong with that, but to pen religious doctrine that so powerfully impacts human history with your own agenda... Oh boy...that just opened up a huge can! People who know nothing of marriage, should not counsel about it, IMO.
I wonder if any here who are complaining about welfare, single parenting, and all of the other things that are being complained about here, have ever been in the situation themselves? It really is a curious thing in humans, that the things you complain about, you either have no knowledge of, or are speaking through reflective convictions.
I stopped responding a few pages back, because I was getting pissed off. The things I was reading, seemed to be uninformed conjecture about how the other half live, when in reality, we have been that other have for most of the last ten years. I was 19, my wife 16 when our oldest was born, he just turned 10. We were "married" a year after that, although we had already been married since before he was born. We now have 4 kids. Almost got divorced once, but pulled through by the grace of God. We have always been a single income family. Right now, I am the stay at home, with my wife working as a baker, she makes $10 per hour. That's right, $10 per hour, for a household of 6. At times in the past, we have needed food stamps in the past, and been fortunate it was there.
Wanna here something that'll really rile you up! I just filed my taxes...I paid $0 out of wages, and am getting a refund of $3500. I'm not complaining, cause we could really use it, but it is a bit strange!
What I am trying to say here, by telling you about our circumstances, is that none of the things being talked about (family wise) here are impossible. Maybe we should encourage folks to succeed, instead of just warning them about the failures (a very subjective term in itself).
BTW, my wife and I are both products of some "failures". Her mom, has been married and divorced twice. A single working mom, her daughter grew up latchkey, going to public schools in the ghetto's of Stockton, CA. Book smarts aren't her strong suit, but she is still one of the smartest people I have met, because she doesn't limit it to her brain. She cooks everything from scratch, including cream of mushroom soup for tuna casarole. She also butchers chickens, bakes, and amazes me how well she can keep the house clean, everybody fed, etc.
I grew up with a mom who worked in a man's world. I would get dropped off at Grandma and Grandpa's at 5 AM, and picked up around 6 PM, yet mom still found time to coach my losing little league team to a head spinning turn around! She almost never missed a performance of mine in drama or band. I thought she was going to pass out when I told her I was going to be a dad! Now she is the proudest grandparent!
Basically, it's like this, if you love life, God (even if you don't recognize him), and your kids, it shows. Your kids will reflect that love, and very possibly continue it.
Sorry, just started rambling, but I just wanted to tell you all why I was so riled, and to apologize for my part in judgments against you.
Shabbat shalom
Quote from: tanya on February 14, 2009, 01:50:37 AM
I am going to bed now. I have to say a few rosaries so I don't go to hell if I die in my sleep.
Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? ;) Mere repetition of words never bought anyone heaven. Unless you're praying with quite a bit of contrition for those sins meriting hell, you might as well save your breath and go to bed. If, however, you are truly repentant for your sins and are begging God for mercy, asking His mother for her intercession wouldn't be such a bad idea. Jesus has a tremendous amount of respect and love for His mother, as is illustrated in the story of the wedding feast at Cana. He will certainly be pleased with anyone who has respect for His mother, and will have a hard time turning that person down at the pearly gate if she puts in a good word for him. ;)
I don't know why I bother...
Quote from: Jens on February 14, 2009, 10:12:28 AM
"This does not only refer to infidelity inside of marriage, as there was a double standard in the definition of adultery in Patriarchal Israel for men, adultery meant sex with another married woman. For women, adultery meant sex with any other man"
Sure is nice of man to decide what God means when he says things so simple, innit.
??? God picked the word, not us. It meant the same thing before he used it...
Quote from: Jens on February 14, 2009, 10:12:28 AM
I still have never read the part in the Bible that says masturbation is a sin.
It doesn't say anything directly, it is up to us to decide if it's moral or not. The CC is against it for the same reason that it is against porn. Chiefly, that sexual pleasure is a gift that is meant to be selflessly shared with a spouse, to strengthen the bond between the two and to be open to new life.
Selfish use of sexual pleasure is destructive to a relationship, and to a potential relationship as it is being done solely for one's own gratification. YMMV
Quote from: Jens on February 14, 2009, 10:12:28 AM
Basically, it's like this, if you love life, God (even if you don't recognize him), and your kids, it shows. Your kids will reflect that love, and very possibly continue it.
This is true, but it can also become a very comfortable lukewarm "good enough" area to float around in if one is not on a spiritual journey, so you should always be moving forward with your relationship with God rather than getting stagnant.. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, just encouraging you to continue "fighting the good fight." ;)
Quote from: Jens on February 14, 2009, 10:12:28 AM
I wonder if any here who are complaining about welfare, single parenting, and all of the other things that are being complained about here, have ever been in the situation themselves? It really is a curious thing in humans, that the things you complain about, you either have no knowledge of, or are speaking through reflective convictions.
I stopped responding a few pages back, because I was getting pissed off. The things I was reading, seemed to be uninformed conjecture about how the other half live, when in reality, we have been that other have for most of the last ten years. I was 19, my wife 16 when our oldest was born, he just turned 10. We were "married" a year after that, although we had already been married since before he was born. We now have 4 kids. Almost got divorced once, but pulled through by the grace of God. We have always been a single income family. Right now, I am the stay at home, with my wife working as a baker, she makes $10 per hour. That's right, $10 per hour, for a household of 6. At times in the past, we have needed food stamps in the past, and been fortunate it was there.
Wanna here something that'll really rile you up! I just filed my taxes...I paid $0 out of wages, and am getting a refund of $3500. I'm not complaining, cause we could really use it, but it is a bit strange!
What I am trying to say here, by telling you about our circumstances, is that none of the things being talked about (family wise) here are impossible. Maybe we should encourage folks to succeed, instead of just warning them about the failures (a very subjective term in itself).
What is a 'reflective conviction'? I've never heard that term.
I'm glad someone is using the money I pay into the social policy networks. Using it and not abusing it that is...
For me and my daughter, it isn't about success/failure. It's about using all her skills and brains to get a result. But most important is learning from any incorrect results. She has learned from me that a failure is better than a 1/2 assed success. Only because the result of a failure is a full success next time.
Quote from: Jens on February 14, 2009, 10:12:28 AM
I stopped responding a few pages back, because I was getting pissed off. The things I was reading, seemed to be uninformed conjecture about how the other half live, when in reality, we have been that other have for most of the last ten years. I was 19, my wife 16 when our oldest was born, he just turned 10. We were "married" a year after that, although we had already been married since before he was born. We now have 4 kids. Almost got divorced once, but pulled through by the grace of God. We have always been a single income family. Right now, I am the stay at home, with my wife working as a baker, she makes $10 per hour. That's right, $10 per hour, for a household of 6. At times in the past, we have needed food stamps in the past, and been fortunate it was there.
It is one thing to find yourself in a situation that is unplanned. However it is entirely another situation knowing you can not afford/provide for your children then have 8 more and expect the state to help you. This is why people are angry.
Let's see if I understand.
A single mom of 6, no mention of the father(s) of those kids.
Gets a $100,000 settlement. Goes back to schools? Nope! Starts a business? Nope!
"Invests" the money in artificial insemination knowing she will be able to use the police power of the state to force others to pay the medical bills, lifelong medical care, food, shelter and education of all the kids.
If the "investment" really pays off there will be paid interviews, donations, and perhaps a book or movie. If not government will continue to take money from other to supply her needs.
Under the guise of biblical teachings we do not have the right to criticize her decisions. We do have the moral and legal obligation to pay for this train wreck.
Ok, got it.
You think she's done? How many more will she have? Is that ok? How many copycats will be spawned (pun intended) by her instant fame and publicity.
These kids will stay in the news for generations, much like the Dionne quintuplets but with a sick twist. In the end it is likely that welfare laws will get re-written because of the enormity of this abuse and future, deserving people will find less funding and compassion.
Quote from: StinkerBell on February 14, 2009, 02:07:08 PM
It is one thing to find yourself in a situation that is unplanned. However it is entirely another situation knowing you can not afford/provide for your children then have 8 more and expect the state to help you. This is why people are angry.
That's it in a nutshell, Stink.. :D
All the sidetracking about God, Jesus, marriage yes/no, universal health care, etc. is all smokescreen. The real question is, was the decision to have more children, a rational responsible move, especially in a risky venture like IVF, given her personal situation? I've also noted another detail I forgot about. The OctoMom has about $50,000 in outstanding student loans. I don't know if those were incurred before or after the $100K settlement. Draw your own conclusions on that.
Ern, we are all on a spiritual journey, and all finding our way back to God, anyone who says their journey is over, is either dead, arrogant, or is the Messiah.
In Genesis, it says "for this reason shall a man leave his mother and father, and be joined to his wife, that they become one flesh", or something to that effect. The Hebrew word used for join, is used about 5 more times in the scriptures, every time it pertains to man or Israel's clinging to God...spiritually. We, as man, in our infinite wisdom, have dubbed it marriage, and put legal terms to it. That is what I mean by perverting it...taking something beautiful, and spiritual, and turning it into something physical, and tangible, kind of like what we do with God simply by naming.
I can't believe I wrote so much earlier! I'm sorry!
John, "investment", and that stuff, wreaked with sarcasm, at least where I am from :)
Bull, by reflective conviction, I mean that people base their dislikes, on things that they find in themselves, often without even knowing it. They convict others, based on their own reflection, and they don't even realize they are looking at themselves. I talk about this, not in view of the woman discussed here, but all of the judgments that get levied upon people who have kids young, or single, or get divorced, or are poor, rich, etc.
Again, so sorry about the novel up there! d*
Quote from: Jens on February 14, 2009, 07:09:45 PM
Bull, by reflective conviction, I mean that people base their dislikes, on things that they find in themselves, often without even knowing it. They convict others, based on their own reflection, and they don't even realize they are looking at themselves. I talk about this, not in view of the woman discussed here, but all of the judgments that get levied upon people who have kids young, or single, or get divorced, or are poor, rich, etc.
I agree that some people base their dislikes on things they find in them self (projecting). I base some of my dislikes on observations made, for example, I do not like men who beat their wife, this does not mean I have experienced a beating by my husband.
I have pretty well stayed clear of this thread but it looks like it will be a slow agonizing death. So has anyone looked at the monetary gain of the mother on a goverment based assistance (Welfare). Although she said that she will not be getting warefare but assistance. ??? 6 children + 8 children= 14. What would her monetary monthly assistance be in CA.
I for one think she was wrong. You can blame whomever you would like but the ultimate decision was hers.
Quote from: Jens on February 14, 2009, 07:09:45 PM
In Genesis, it says "for this reason shall a man leave his mother and father, and be joined to his wife, that they become one flesh", or something to that effect. The Hebrew word used for join, is used about 5 more times in the scriptures, every time it pertains to man or Israel's clinging to God...spiritually. We, as man, in our infinite wisdom, have dubbed it marriage, and put legal terms to it.
You're saying that Adam and Eve were joined through God, right? And that this joining happens as soon as we give our heart to someone without an official "marriage"?
It's hard to argue this on a biblical basis, though you could bring up the wedding feast and those traditions that Jesus obviously respected, but as a Catholic I would
want to married through the Church. I believe that God blesses a marriage in a special way through the sacrament of matrimony, and that the couple will receive the graces they need to remain steadfast in their faithfulness to one another through it. I also believe that the waiting and formation time before the sacrament of marriage will help the couple to fully understand the serious step they are taking with one another, rather than just getting caught up in a moment of passionate feelings that could quickly fade if the going gets rough.
Per child for some of them determined to have special needs - depending on circumstances could get costly if the become responsibility of the state - Up to $3006 under special circumstances - PER CHILD
"(c) (1) The rate to be paid for 24-hour out-of-home care and
supervision provided to children who are both consumers of regional
center services pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 4512 and
recipients of AFDC-FC benefits under this chapter shall be two
thousand six dollars ($2,006) per child per month.
(2) (A) The county, at its sole discretion, may authorize a
supplement of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) to the rate for
children three years of age and older, if it determines the child has
the need for extraordinary care and supervision that cannot be met
within the rate established pursuant to paragraph (1)"
I didn't find the normal welfare amount - this is bad enough $3006 x 14 =$42084 per month --- not likely all would come under this but if taken from her some could and besides that is what is being paid for others who are in a non-responsibility situation - since we are just looking at examples.
To answer the dollar amount in real world terms, speaking California legalese from my experiences, $1500 per month is the aid she will be given. Plus $900 in food stamps. In order to get the $1500 though, she will have to attend 40 hours of classes per week, and be actively seeking employment. Sounds like something that actually makes a bit of sense right? Doesn't work that way. Somehow, the only people that end up getting screwed, are the ones that are working really hard, and just need some help.
The whole welfare system sucks! IMO, just get rid of it, teach people to help others (something the capitalist system doesn't do well), feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick. If they got rid of welfare, they could probably set up a soup kitchen on every block!
Ern, of course Jesus respected the ceremony of marriage, and so should we. But nobody, anywhere, has the right to tell another who they can or can't be married to, how old they have to be, how they have to go about it, etc. The best way for you, is the best way for you, but may not be even for your brother who shares your beliefs. Just as we all must search for God in our own ways (there is no 12 step program), so must we all find our way through every other journey in life.
"I also believe that the waiting and formation time before the sacrament of marriage will help the couple to fully understand the serious step they are taking with one another, rather than just getting caught up in a moment of passionate feelings that could quickly fade if the going gets rough."
I think that it is more important to teach them to love, work hard, and not to give up, and when the going gets tough, praise God for his greatness. Baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu melech ha'olam, blessed is the Lord God sovereign in the universe. By keeping sight of the needs of others, keeping selfishness at bay, only then can a marriage succeed.
BTW, we were married 1.5 years after our son was born , thus 2.5 years after we met. Most "recognized" marriages I have witnessed, don't even last that long, yet we will have our 9th wedding anniversary this summer, praise be to Him! If you limit love, with rules of protocol, instead of true rules of God, you become like our government. As much love as I have for the Church, I feel she will never see the points at which she can change to drawing people in, instead of driving them away. She can be swiftly unkind.
Quote from: Jens on February 15, 2009, 09:32:32 AM
Ern, of course Jesus respected the ceremony of marriage, and so should we. But nobody, anywhere, has the right to tell another who they can or can't be married to, how old they have to be,
Who's telling everyone who they can and can't marry?
Quote from: Jens on February 15, 2009, 09:32:32 AM
By keeping sight of the needs of others, keeping selfishness at bay, only then can a marriage succeed.
I completely agree... I don't see how the sacrament of marriage is not helping a couple to achieve that.
Quote from: Jens on February 15, 2009, 09:32:32 AM
BTW, we were married 1.5 years after our son was born , thus 2.5 years after we met. Most "recognized" marriages I have witnessed, don't even last that long, yet we will have our 9th wedding anniversary this summer, praise be to Him!
I'm glad for your healthy marriage, and I too have seen "official" marriages break up quickly. A marriage ceremony is not a miracle great-marriage-maker by any means, the root of the problems are always in the individuals.. I'm just saying that the marriage sacrament a great tool for an already blessed and selfless couple to further solidify their holy union.
Quote from: Jens on February 15, 2009, 09:32:32 AM
If you limit love, with rules of protocol, instead of true rules of God, you become like our government.
How does a recognized marriage limit your love? Just because you are asked to remain abstinent beforehand? Don't you think that you are showing much true love and commitment to your spouse-to-be if you are willing to wait until your marriage to share that special gift? If their is no waiting, then their is no commitment. Perhaps not necessarily in your case, but other immature relationships will develop and fall apart quickly, as is often case nowadays, leading to many unwanted and uncared for (either physically or spiritually) children. The result of a society where no one accepts responsibility for the repercussions of their actions and the pleasures they seek...
Hey Ern, in about 10 years or so, let me know if you are looking for a wife... I've got a 16 year old I'd like to introduce you to. She's got an IQ of 150, plays the piano, competitive chess, high school tennis, ballroom dances, lives to read, likes to ride dirt bikes, and can outshoot most men I know. She's also gorgeous, is family centric, and is a good Catholic. :D
But she can't cook :-[
-f-
P.S. Stay strong in your faith.
If Andrew likes to cook there is no problem. I am the cook around here. :D
Note to self: need matchmaking topic. ;)
I get that enough at home... ;) NM, with an IQ of 150 it shouldn't take long to cook.. ;)
OMG! I stopped reading a while back...this thing is out of control d*
I must leave and go masturbate! :)
I think all of this religious discussion is leading you astray, Dog. A stray dog. hmm
WHEW I am back. I had to rest up for a few hours before I could get online. Baby had the flu!!! Now let me tell you one baby with flu took all I had. I was up until midnight just doing the laundry. The octo mom is going to have her hands full and I hope to heaven she gets a few nanny's provided. I would like everyone here who is so concerned about how much govt. assistance she will receive to also be open minded enough to state how much taxes she will PAY when the movie deals, magazine articles, and promo gigs come in. I am thinking she might actually have to have a few more jsut to keep from losing it all tot he govt.
I told my daughter and her husband I think they should go for the IVF, since she is limited to one more, maybe two more pregnancies. She said no! because pregnancy is already risky for her and she thinks it would be higher risk for multiples, he said YES he wants 9 so they have an even ten. I think three might be reasonable. We will see... The Catholic relatives with big families will be here for the party and I will put it up for a vote. BUT according to someone up there in the thread the man has authority over the wifes body by gods SAY SO!!! We will see. I already have my masters degree in poop disturbing, I am thinking... maybe I can get the PhD too...
Quote from: tanya on February 15, 2009, 07:20:06 PM
.... She said no! because pregnancy is already risky for her and she thinks it would be higher risk for multiples, he said YES he wants 9 so they have an even ten. .......
Seems to me your daughter is the one showing some common sense about her life.
Oh yes she has good sense but I still think she could at least consult with her doctor. By the way I saw a few of the octuplets on TV this morning, they are so very adorable. And I saw that WITCH of a grandmother too. What a hag. If I were her daughter I would disown her. The babies look surprisingly healthy which speaks volumes about how well the mom cared for herself during pregnancy. I am not at all surprised the wealthy amongst us would like the state to take them and put them up for adoption, they are absolutely adorable.
I am curious why you have deemed the grandmother of the octuplets a witch?
Because the octomom already has her hands full. A decent mother/grandma might have those same opinions but she wouldn't voice them to anyone except her own daughter certainly not appearing on national TV. Personally if I had those opinions I would have stated them once and early on and after that I would BUTT OUT!!! Even if she was staying at the g'ma's house, if she didn't like it she could kick her out not go around bad mouthing her on national TV.
I guess the argument could be made on the other side, that maybe her daughter should not place her in such a position. And one could argue that it would be more cruel to kick her out with all her kids then possibly having a off day and blurting something out to the media. Maybe a little grace could be afforded to the grandmother, I know I would not want to be in her shoes nor could I ever understand how much pressure/stress she herself is under.
Quote from: tanya on February 15, 2009, 07:20:06 PM
I would like everyone here who is so concerned about how much govt. assistance she will receive to also be open minded enough to state how much taxes she will PAY when the movie deals, magazine articles, and promo gigs come in.
Well, yes, when and if there are book earnings, movie earnings and what not, then she will be obligated to pay income taxes and that is good and proper.
However, that does not remove or alter the facts that she did not act responsibly in the first place, nor did the IVF doctor.
As for O-M's mother, I feel sorry for her. Grandma has probably reached the end of her patience; she has certainly reached the end of her family's funds, what with the grandparents bankruptcies. More than likely she was having one in a series of bad days. At one time grandma and grandpa were probably looking forward to the day they could have a grandchild or two around. I'm certain they did not plan on what amounts to a full time home childcare facility in their elder years.
In re to the topic...What Happened to self control ??
sparks
I just don't see how the g-ma can justify her bad mouthing at all. SO WHAT if she had other expectatins, it is her daughters life to live not her own. Also even if she is having a hard time of it what good could it possibly do to air that on national television? Personally I think she is just looking for her OWN moment of fame. Yes, she WILL pay taxes, as will her chilren when they get old enough so why shouldn't the public sector help out now in the interim time of crisis? And no one but the mom and her medical providers could possibly know why she decided to have all the embryos implanted at once but my guess is she knew she had one more pregnancy left in her and she had 6 embryos that had to be implanted or lost. Maybe she just couldn't choose which ones to keep and which to flush?
How is self control an issue for this woman? It isn't like she was out sexing it up, she went to a fertilization clinic and was implanted!!! I am just glad the babies appear healthy and thriving.
"maybe her daughter should not place her in such a position. " So it's OK then for parents who have a difference of opinion with their adult children to go out and bad mouth them on national TV? IF she does have serious issues I am blaming that mother!!!
I don't believe anyone is seriously saying that they should all be tossed out on the street. People are saying they are upset with O-M's behavior.
And the grandmother has every right to voice her opinion in public if she wants to, just as you have the right to voice your opinion in this public forum. You don't have to agree with the grandmother; I don't have to agree with you.
Quote from: tanya on February 15, 2009, 09:36:10 PM
How is self control an issue for this woman? It isn't like she was out sexing it up, she went to a fertilization clinic and was implanted!!! I am just glad the babies appear healthy and thriving.
I am hoping you are joking. But if you are not the self control issue is her numerous pregnancy via fertilization and with the numerous fertilization she had numerous implants with the last pregnancy.
I think her mom made her choices and raised her family and she should not be obligated to help raise her daughters children. That may be how she feels about it too.
While nearly all will help their children as they can, a parent, cannot be expected to help raise a small city just because a mentally unstable child decided to have more kids than she can possibly handle.
I'm afraid that after I got her to the safety of her own home I would have to close the door and walk away. That isn't a family. It's a herd.
Well I would LOVE to have that many grandchildren every day so I guess I am just NOT normal. Believe me I am grateful for that. AND by the way I am getting some mini goats to and I don't care how many people say it's crazy!!! And maybe that g-ma does have th right to voice her opinion publicly that doesn't make it GOOD TASTE or a supportive parent. If I were that daughter I would take all those kids move into a nice hotel and tell that old hag to bug off!!!
Dog, you crack me up!!!
Ern, "who you can marry" wasn't directed at you, or any of the comments here so far, just one of my major beefs with the legal and religious views on marriage. I definitely see advantages in marriage, but religious people (Christians most of the time, big surprising fascists there) generally look down on people who don't do it "right", by their standards. Not everybody does everything the same way, in fact few people do anything the same way. To say that one persons relationship will fail because they didn't do it the same way as the status quo is, well, arrogant. If you have only done things one way, and have been blessed in it, then Adonai be praised, but don't sink somebody else's boat because they hand painted their letters instead of using the same store bought stencil.
If I may offer up a metaphor, it would be like me telling all of you that you are going about your houses the wrong way, because you didn't hire a professional builder like me to build it. Your houses have a much higher percentage of caving in on you, because you don't have the "proper" skills needed to do everything the way that I would. In fact, it shouldn't even be allowed to build a house, unless you have designed it for at least 2 years, gotten a blessing from the manufacture of materials, then you buy everything at once, keep it in a storage unit, so that you know you have it all (the job, the house, the retirement, I know that isn't what you are saying, but is standard). Then, once you have all of the tools necessary (remember, you can't go to the store during building), and all the materials, then you will definitely be able to build, it'll be safe, beautiful, and withstand the test of time. And it is all because you did things the "right" way. That is what it feels like to a person like me, or at least it did until I grew a beard. My wife was getting "joked" with at work the other day, because she has 4 kids. Basically the executive chef and the owners sister called her a slut, and an idiot. They used more words to form their "playing", but in a nutshell that was it. If she were 36, instead of 26, they wouldn't think those things. It hurts me that so many people are so judgmental, sometimes I just want to put the fear of God into them. But I simply hurt for them, and leave it at that, one should not return judgment for judgment.
I'm taking a break for here for a while. This whole thing here is making me sad. Conversing in type is never a good way to get a point across.
Shalom
Quote from: tanya on February 15, 2009, 09:53:24 PM
Well I would LOVE to have that many grandchildren every day so I guess I am just NOT normal. Believe me I am grateful for that. AND by the way I am getting some mini goats to and I don't care how many people say it's crazy!!! And maybe that g-ma does have th right to voice her opinion publicly that doesn't make it GOOD TASTE or a supportive parent. If I were that daughter I would take all those kids move into a nice hotel and tell that old hag to bug off!!!
You are correct in saying it might not be in good taste, but you're in error to think she does not have the right to voice her opinion about her daughters behavior. She has the absolute right to say what she wants.
Quote from: Jens on February 15, 2009, 09:56:13 PM
Dog, you crack me up!!!
Ern, "who you can marry" wasn't directed at you, or any of the comments here so far, just one of my major beefs with the legal and religious views on marriage. I definitely see advantages in marriage, but religious people (Christians most of the time, big surprising fascists there) generally look down on people who don't do it "right", by their standards.
Shalom
I find this statement interesting. You did say in an early post
QuoteBull, by reflective conviction, I mean that people base their dislikes, on things that they find in themselves, often without even knowing it. They convict others, based on their own reflection, and they don't even realize they are looking at themselves. I talk about this, not in view of the woman discussed here, but all of the judgments that get levied upon people who have kids young, or single, or get divorced, or are poor, rich, etc.
It would seem that you are doing the same here. What maybe offered to help your walk with God, given in love, you see as fascist people who look down at you and judge you. Could you possibly be projecting your convictions, your own reflections on someone else?
QuoteThat isn't a family. It's a herd.
It's a science experiment.
Of course she has the right and Octomom has the OBLIGATION to keep that kind of negative abusive attitude away from her children!!!
"but your in error to think she does not have the right to voice her opinion about her daughters behavior. "
I certainly NEVER said she didn't have the right, of course she had the right or she wouldn't be on national TV to begin with. I state my opinions about my children's behavior on a regular basis but I have enough common decency to say it to their face and enough RESPECT to say it to them and NOT involve others. I am sure that hag jsut wants her own moment of fame and is jealous of her daughters happiness and eventual prosperity.
I apologize tanya, I misread your statement. I disagree with your position, not entirely. However, I was wrong with my misreading of your comment. I am sorry for that.
Well you certainly don't have to apologize every time you mis read something. I know I am harsh on this topic too. I just feel for that mom who really is facing a tough time even though things eventually will work out fine I am sure.
It is indeed a tough topic.
The state is facing a tough time on this too.
"In California, a low-income family can receive Social Security payments of up to $793 a month for each disabled child. Three children would amount to $2,379. She already has three that are disabled.
The Suleman octuplets' medical costs have not been disclosed, but in 2006, the average cost for a premature baby's hospital stay in California was $164,273, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Eight times that equals $1.3 million.
For a single mother, the cost of raising 14 children through age 17 ranges from $1.3 million to $2.7 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is struggling to close a $42 billion budget gap by cutting services, declined through a spokesman to comment on the taxpayer costs associated with the octuplets' delivery and care."
She is on welfare but does not feel that it is welfare.
That is so irresponsible. Look at the costs. We do not owe her anything.
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO104376/
Oh yeah - and she wants to go to college to be a counselor. Like she could offer advice that would be anything but twisted.
Sorry but I don't get it.
Thanks for the numbers, Glenn. I couldn't bear to total 'em up myself.
I think the topic is tough because there is so many layers.
Should mentally unstable people be able to get invitro?
Should people who cannot afford/provide for children at the time of invitro be allowed to have invitro?
Should non married individuals be allowed to have invitro?
Should children be entitled to know both parents?
Should tax payers pay for peoples personal choice to have children when they can not provide?
Should there be a cap on how many implants should be made in a woman?
Should woman be able to have invitro when there is not a medical issue preventing pregnancy? (not having a man around is not a medical issue).
Should the state be paying for children when a mother gets a settlement check and uses the money not on her current family but get more invitro?
Should CPS (I hate CPS and even defended the mormons in a thread about them last year, thats how much I hate CPS..but this is one time I think they need to be involved) be involved?
This topic has many may layers.
(not having a man around is not a medical issue)
...but it could be an indicator of deficiencies in her mentality and reason to prevent her from procreating if possible.... [waiting]
Note the fist item on my list of layers. [slap]
I see nothing wrong with her having the invitro. No husband/father required. Lots of single parents have proven over and over again their children are as adjusted as well as two parent households. I am sure that the govt. figured in her settlement check and she received the assistance she was entitled to,(probably zero). Just because her three children are disabled does not mean that they are getting social security checks, not all disabled children qualify. In fact if they did qualify very likely the houselhold income would be so high they would not qualify for other assistance. As far as the medical costs, well then is medical care only for the rich? Caps on invitro? Well obvioulsy the babies are dong well, so I see no reason why they should cap it. "Mentally unstable" is an opinion, sometimes an educated one, but certainly not black and white or all inclusive. Should taxpayers pay for children even when the parents cannot provide? YES!!! they are citizens and they will be the ones "providing/paying" soon enough. IVF should be offered just like any other procedure it is irrelevant if a "man being around" or if a medical condition exists, plenty of women might see it as a way of PREVENTING a medical condidtion from their man around!!! I see NO reason for CPS involvement she obviously did a wonderful job taking care of herself and her pregnancy and her other children or by now we would have heard about it.
I know here in WA that the state regulates financial assistance, in other words your welfare check will go up about $50 if you have one child and then have another but after the second one it doesn't go up anymore, the most is about $640. So 2 kids or 10 you get the same check. Food Stamps is different though, each person after the first one gets an additional $50-$100. Using the numbers below she will need about 4 million dollars to care for the babies until they are raised, wanna bet the movie makes more than that?
Quote from: Jens on February 15, 2009, 09:56:13 PM
I'm taking a break for here for a while. This whole thing here is making me sad.
That's not good! ;) Please don't take personal offense at what I or anyone else here has said; we're simply throwing our different views into the jackpot so we can all benefit from them. Obviously no one has every answer; just a clue to the mystery. As long as we build our houses to code (our moral code, that is), there's no danger of failure. God's not trying to trip you up; He will gently steer each of us down our own individual path.
Tanya, you are probably a very lovely person, but your views and your opinions are way to socialist for me.
Be more specific and it will be my pleasure to reply. I prefer socialist to facist anyday by the way. (not saying you are facist but I think the views in this country are headed that way)
I oppose about everything you pointed out in your post. My reply is specific to this case.
The argument No husband/father required. I think that is the most selfish of things. This women imo is selfish. She demonstrates this by having all these kids at the tax payers cost. She placed a burden on her parents with her selfish behavior. But above it all she can not provide for her children.
The fact you have the belief that people are Entitled to assistance. I have issue with that.
You suggest that that everyone should have medical care, that it should not be for only the rich. Yes, everyone should have medical care, and obviously she has received it. BUT this was an ELECTIVE medical procedure. This was not to help her extend her life by regular checks ups or receive emergency care because she was in need. It was elective.
You say all the babies are doing well, they are doing well for being premies does not mean they are over all healthy. Know one knows the long term problems they may. She does already have three other children that have issues.
Your argument that tax payers should pay because they are citizen and they will be paying their taxes soon enough... Well if they model them self after their mother they will not be contributing to the tax pool, but will be drawing off it.
You think CPS should not be involved because she had taken care of herself during her pregnancy. That not all true and misleading. The tax payers have taken care of here through medical treatment, and assistance her mother has and is taking care of her other children. Everyone has taken care of her because in fact she does not take care of herself or her responsibilities.
The finally assumption you made is she will make millions of dollars on the situation she created. Maybe. Seeing the overall reaction she is receiving I would think that maybe she will not have Hollywood beating down her door, and if she did I would hope that the state would garnish any funds received to help make them whole in the funds they have laid out for her choices. She also runs a risk by making a large income having her children disqualified for assistance because her household makes to much money.
Dang... i hope I am not too late to join in the fray.
I say to let any woman have as many babies as she can adequately support completely on her own.
If she requires welfare or other state support for more than a year, give her the option of sterilization or giving kids up to be adopted out.
There. I'm pretty sure I got caught up and annoyed folks with just two sentences.
-f-
P.S. if there is a dad involved, same thing for him. Pay up or we'll enact our own form of "severence"
Ok Then, So because I think she can make the decision whether she needs a husband to be a good parent makes me a socialist, no that makes you a facist! This is the US not Nazi Germany, adults get to make thier own choices concerning relationships.
"The fact you have the belief that people are Entitled to assistance." I DO MOST DEFINATELY belieive that since we are AT WAR in another country, paying for everything under the sun, OUR CITIZENS should get whatever they NEED. Facists believe they should tell everybody else in the world how to live and only pay for what profits their end goals, Socialists believe in live and let live and take care of things as best possible.
"You suggest that that everyone should have medical care, that it should not be for only the rich. Yes, everyone should have medical care, and obviously she has received it. BUT this was an ELECTIVE medical procedure. This was not to help her extend her life by regular checks ups or receive emergency care because she was in need. It was elective."
Oh I thought she paid for the procedure with a settlement and we as taxpayers are paying for the babies care and well being because they are our fellow citizens. She made a brilliant decision which will set her up for the rest of her life but some peole have a hard time seeing that. Elective or preventive again should medical care/procedures be afforded to only the rich? After all everybody pays taxes to develop this technology??? Facists believe elective medical care should only be for the rich, BUT experiments should be done on the poor, that is probably how she managed to finagle the IVF to begin with. Socialists believe medical care, elective, or preventive, or required is between the patient and med provider.
"You say all the babies are doing well, they are doing well for being premies does not mean they are over all healthy. Know one knows the long term problems they may. She does already have three other children that have issues"
So? People with disabled children already should be banned from having additional children? DEFINATELY FACIST!!! Socialists believe again taht is a decision for the individuals as parent/parents.
"Your argument that tax payers should pay because they are citizen and they will be paying their taxes soon enough... Well if they model them self after their mother they will not be contributing to the tax pool, but will be drawing off it."
So then ONLY parents who can guarantee their offspring will grow up to pay thier fair share in taxes should procreate? FACIST!!! Again socialists believe that is a personal choice not govt. business.
"You think CPS should not be involved because she had taken care of herself during her pregnancy. That not all true and misleading. The tax payers have taken care of here through medical treatment, and assistance her mother has and is taking care of her other children. Everyone has taken care of her because in fact she does not take care of herself or her responsibilities."
No the taxpayers have not "taken care of her" She is the one who has to be eating/sleeping/and conducting her life in a healthy pregnant way to ensure the babies survival. Taxpayers pay for a lot of welfare, many moms go on crack while pregnant, a lot of grandmothers take care of grandchildren, it doesn't mean she isn't taking care of them, it means she found them appropriate care. That IS taking care of her responsibilities!!! FACISTS believe that everyone has to choose the same options or be ostercized, socialists believe that everybody has different ways of doing things based on their situation.
"The finally assumption you made is she will make millions of dollars on the situation she created. Maybe. Seeing the overall reaction she is receiving I would think that maybe she will not have Hollywood beating down her door, and if she did I would hope that the state would garnish any funds received to help make them whole in the funds they have laid out for her choices. She also runs a risk by making a large income having her children disqualified for assistance because her household makes to much money."
OF course the state will recoup any funds spent they do in every case where the parents financial situation inproves to the extent that they are able to pay. Hollywood, magazines etc. will be beating down her door. Whether the reaction is good or bad to her choices that doesn't matter to hollywood because they are basically all socialists. As far as her household becoming ineligible for financial assistance, only a facist with a desire to keep control of or continue to beat up on her would have a problem with that. Socialists say great more money for others in need.
I HOPE you are not a facisit!!!
Quote from: StinkerBell on February 15, 2009, 11:42:37 PM
The finally assumption you made is she will make millions of dollars on the situation she created.....
I doubt anyone will want a movie or a book. There's nothing about the story to be applauded, other than the fact that everyone came out of it alive.
Quote from: tanya on February 16, 2009, 12:12:16 AM
OUR CITIZENS should get whatever they NEED.
Need, yes. She did not
need 8 more kids; she
wanted 8 more kids.
Too many folks have trouble distinguishing between those two words.
Just like too many people wanted houses they could not afford, and would not settle for something that would fulfill their needs.
What I am is a responsible individual. Who has rational sense.
You have brought in emotional arguments. For example "War"
QuoteI DO MOST DEFINATELY belieive that since we are AT WAR in another country, paying for everything under the sun, OUR CITIZENS should get whatever they NEED
I suggest you understand the difference between need and want. She did not need to have any more babies, she Wanted more.
You brought in other strawman arguments regarding the poor and medical care.
QuoteFacists believe elective medical care should only be for the rich, BUT experiments should be done on the poor, that is probably how she managed to finagle the IVF to begin with.
You keep on using the word Fascist. I think at this point it is fruitless to discuss this with you. Your arguments are not the facts of this case and you are using emotional arguments that have nothing to do with this case in order to make an argument that I am a fascist.
I only suggested that your opinions in this case was socialist, and I didn't need to start every thought/sentence making the suggestion that you are a socialist.
This quote I find the most funniest almost oxymoronic when applied to this situation.
QuoteAgain socialists believe that is a personal choice not govt. business
I find it funny because you are saying it is not the governments business yet this woman made it the governments business by placing the burden of her personal and selfish choice upon the government.
Quote from: tanya on February 16, 2009, 12:12:16 AM
She made a brilliant decision which will set her up for the rest of her life but some people have a hard time seeing that.
Brilliant? Heaven help us all if we all made such brilliant life decisions. ::) ::) ::) ::)
She wanted more children, which she paid for the IVF with her settlement right? BUT the babies are citizens and they NEED care. It is beyond her choices now that the babies are born.
I know there will be a movie, she has the entire world up in arms!!!
SHe may have paid for her IVF, when she should have paid the state back. I suspect she did not disclose that.
However, the State paid for her health care along with the babies.
They may not be beating down her door either. Her first publicist dropped her due to death threats.
I would say she shouldn't count her money until it is in her hand, but even then the motivation for having a lot of children should not be to make money -- creating children for money is not a sign of a well adjusted woman capable of giving these children a good home. She had chosen to make many other peoples lives a living hell of staying awake nights and days on end just taking care of all of these poor kids. Per quotes from her she does not expect to raise them herself. She expects to burden her family and friends. They even close down puppy factories for unfit conditions. How can she even house this many kids? She can't have considered that.
I know a lady who is just as mad at her own daughter for irresponsibly having one child. What would she do with this?
Facists believe WAR for corporate gain and medical experiments on the poor are acceptable. BUt if you bring it up in conversation it is bringing in emotional stuff. HAHAHA that is not a strawman issue it is FACT!!! She would have had her settlement garnished IF she did in fact owe the state money, and if she failed to disclose it she would be facing jail time. The news would be having a huge field day too. NO it is a fact the govt. will pay to go to war and for medical experiments on the poor, (by the way most of our soldiers are from poor families trying to make a living too) aand then the rich reap the rewards while the poor children and disabled struggle.
The strawman is that it has nothing to do with this woman and this situation.
You argue based on emotional issues not facts pertaining to the case at hand.
"I find it funny because you are saying it is not the governments business yet this woman made it the governments business by placing the burden of her personal and selfish choice upon the government."
Well her choices are her own and I am grateful I live in a country that allows that. Her personal life choices are NOT the govt.s business, she and her children have the same rights as any other family and that includes, med care, schooling, and all sorts of other stuff. And of course WAR and other Govt. waste is the issue why can we discuss the govt. wasting taxpayer money on some wench and her litter and not war/experimental medicines using the poor. That is EXACTLY FACIST!!! No doubt about it. Status baiting, straight out of the NAZI playbook!!!
"I would say she shouldn't count her money until it is in her hand, but even then the motivation for having a lot of children should not be to make money -- creating children for money is not a sign of a well adjusted woman capable of giving these children a good home. She had chosen to make many other peoples lives a living hell of staying awake nights and days on end just taking care of all of these poor kids. Per quotes from her she does not expect to raise them herself. She expects to burden her family and friends. They even close down puppy factories for unfit conditions. How can she even house this many kids? She can't have considered that."
Well I have to say it FACISTS believe they know what the best motivation for having children is...and declare who should be home with the children...and how they should be housed.
Quote from: tanya on February 16, 2009, 12:50:02 AM
"I find it funny because you are saying it is not the governments business yet this woman made it the governments business by placing the burden of her personal and selfish choice upon the government."
Well her choices are her own and I am grateful I live in a country that allows that. Her personal life choices are NOT the govt.s business, she and her children have the same rights as any other family and that includes, med care, schooling, and all sorts of other stuff. And of course WAR and other Govt. waste is the issue why can we discuss the govt. wasting taxpayer money on some wench and her litter and not war/experimental medicines using the poor. That is EXACTLY FACIST!!! No doubt about it. Status baiting, straight out of the NAZI playbook!!!
Are you on crack? You are the most mean spirited individual I have ever meet. To make a Nazi comparative with me just shows your deficit issues.
Schomiger
This isn't looking pretty... And we have such a nice history of keeping our conversations civil, too.. ::)
How am I mean spirited? I am not! It is true that the Nazi's involved themselves in the personal lives of every citizen they could manage. Their master plan WAS status/race/gender baiting strategy it is how they controlled their population. You call me mean spirited but you don't defend your position that I am socialist and your views are not facist. I am not saying YOU are a facist but those views are!!! AND perhaps I am not the one who has a deficit, after all I am not afraid to examine and defend my views. I am by no means a socialist but many of my views tend to lean that way.
And no I am not on Crack are you?
Sorry, Ernest. Women are sometimes very hard to control. Remember that as you grow up, young man. :)
[rofl2] You gals Crack me up. Mud wrestling anybody? rofl
Watch out for the flying kitchen utensils, Glenn.. :) ;)
Discussions require Logic. This discussion has arrived at the point where it is consumed by mostly Emotions.
I believe this has been beaten to death and everybody should take a day off, have a cold shower or something, and let Emotions cool down.
....aw shucks...... :( It was just getting fun. d*
We've been on the verge of hurling epithets, or maybe passed it, for a few pages already. I think we should bury this. Of course that is just my opinion. I'm going to listen to myself even if nobody else cares to.
"Discussions require Logic. This discussion has arrived at the point where it is consumed by mostly Emotions.
I believe this has been beaten to death and everybody should take a day off, have a cold shower or something, and let Emotions cool down."
Be more specific, I see no reason at all why logic would prevent emotions. I am sorry I asked if she was on crack, I know that was not the right thing to do. I have to be honest, facisim scares me to death. I would never survive it.
Ern, the thing that makes me sad, is that I can't get what I am trying to say accross, or perhaps can't type it in a fashion to be understood. Or maybe it can't be understood, that's ok too. If only we could all just sit and drink tea together.
Stink, the fascist thing is a jest, playing upon the secular worlds view of Christians, especially viewed within historical actions. Most of my closest friends are Christian, but the kind who try to follow Jesus' lead to the best of their ability, not the historical kind (of whom I fear there are way too many, and pray I am wrong) who use their power within the Church for personal, political agendas, wealth, and so on.
Wow, this is heated! Mostly civil, but you girls are definitely pulling out the big guns now.
Adonai, forgive us our iniquities, gather us within the folds of your grace, give us hearts of shalom, instruct us in the ways of torah/Yeshua/love, be for us the beacon of hope, whose own incredibly simple ways stay hidden so often, shelter us through the darkness of our hearts, and give us rest. Baruch atah Adonai. Amen
"Stink, the fascist thing is a jest, playing upon the secular worlds view of Christians, especially viewed within historical actions. "
I don't know what you mean by it is a jest but I can assure you it is NOT. I actually could care less what anybodys spiritual beliefs are if they are based in love, the true god for me. BUT I can tell you I have a deep resentment for the facist policies the corporate structure and the govt. often put on citizens more and more these days. People say this is emotional? Well this is a smokescreen issue. The majority of welfare moms ARE raising one or two children and get assistance for brief periods of time. But this issue gives the corporate world and opportunity to get the publics support on an anti welfare stance. Why would the corporate world want to do that, well the same reason everybody doesn't like welfare they don't want to pay the taxes. BUT what they DO VERY MUCH WANT is YOUR TAX MONIES going overseas to insure their corporate profits are protected and enhanced and if you don't believe it ask yourself why we have had MILLIONS of dollars in the past two stimulas packages going overseas??? Why we give tax breaks to companies that ship US jobs overseas? These are not emotional issues these are examples of how the news media will use one woman and her newborns as a smokesceen, to evade responsibility for the real economic melt down, and to shove their facist policies down US citizens throats.
I can agree that the media will use it to distract the people from the financial and government failure issues. that is very common lately. I can agree we are a fascist nation for the most part with big government and big business sleeping together and using our children for cannon fodder, but I still say the girl is irresponsible.
WEll I will agree it was irresponsible for her to give them cannon fodder. BUTTTTTT For reality's sake how many welfare moms are REALLY getting IVF? How many single moms? How many women could ever really carry 8 babies with 8 live births? OF course it is a BIG story but her reasons and choices are her own in this country for the time being anyway.
That is exactly the point. Most welfare moms use it as it was meant to be. To help get them out of a bad situation. She created her own bad situation and abused the system for no reason except wanting company.
I gotta say that i am really, really disappointed with this thread. Biggest food fight since the FLDS fiasco and I missed being in on it. Dang. d*
-f-
I think Tanya might be sleeping. shhhhhhhhhh.....
"That is exactly the point. Most welfare moms use it as it was meant to be. To help get them out of a bad situation. She created her own bad situation and abused the system for no reason except wanting company"
Well after further reading I have to say she wasn't as brilliant as I thought. In fact she was only expecting to end up with TWO out of the deal AT THE MOST. So I have to say that the fertility clinic is responsible for malpractice. So given this new information, I think with $100,000 in her pocket and a reasonably stable environment she had every right/reason to go ahead it was the doctor who screwed up implanting all 6 embryos. Therefore I think once again the taxpayers should be let off the hook because the clinic should PAY!!!
Just a few more layers since I was up so late last night. How much liability should sperm doners have in these situations. After all they leave their "product" unattended for the use of strangers. There are no real protections for the eventual children of these donors and no real screening to see if the would be parents are suitable. I bet that guy just hopes to hell the clinic protects his privacy. She had the babies but it STILL takes TWO to tango. Perhaps we should have responsibility laws which state if the parents are unfit then the donor has to step up, or the clinic has to make other arrangements. Or are we only willing to paint the mother with a scarlet W.M. for welfare mom?
Tanya d* d* d* --- I think we can pretty much come to an agreement here although I think we should continue a bit for Frank's benefit. Generally He and I choose opposing sides,,,, [waiting]
I agree, Tanya. If guys go around spewing sperm for mothers who may make poor choices to use, then I think they should also be held responsible. It's like leaving a loaded gun within a child's reach. What was he thinking anyway and can the state find him. [scared]
I will be hanging on to all of mine I know, no matter how much it could improve the world. :)
I'll come back to join in the fray about sperm donors.
A sperm donor is not much different than a blood or plasma donor. Both enable medical services to be performed by a doctor. The relationship goes no further than the man being the vendor of the sperm or the blood. After either leaves his possession he has no control over what is done with them, therefore he has no responsibility for and births, birth defects, medical bills, etc. In many cases guys donate sperm to a sperm bank, just like I donate blood to the blood bank. I have no idea where my blood goes and the anonymous sperm doner has no idea where his sperm goes.
In some cases the woman may make personal arrangements with a friend for a sperm donation. When this done by delivering the sperm in a medical non personal method the male doner bears no responsibility for the offspring either. I believe it is a wholly different matter if the man makes the delivery in person, first hand rather than second hand, so to speak.
I believe your logic is flawed. One important difference between donating blood/plasma and donating sperm. Sperm often results in another helpless human being, whereas blood plasma donations will not. I see no reason why they should not bear the responsibility of thier donation particularly when it was donated to an unethical agency. The mother has responsibilities to make sure the resulting children are well cared for why shouldn't the donor have that same responsibility? Of course I believe the clinic should be held 150 percent responsible in this particular case since she was expecting one baby two tops, and the "doctor" implanted six. That is cruel and unusual torture in my opinion and I think not only should he be facing license revokation but also crimminal charges.
The typical donation of sperm is done anonymously. The donors have to sign waivers of their parental rights. Therefore the reverse should also be true; the donors can not be placed in a position of responsibility. The sperm is out of their hands after they make the donation. Literally.
The mother to be, shopping for a baby gets to read a synopsis of the physical traits of the donor. That's it. Some banks have strict criteria for donors; the mom to be would know what those standards are. She also has to sign papers stating that she takes on all responsibility for the child(ren).
Some states have laws stating that sperm donors have no parental rights. Maybe they all do?
BTW, About 150 commercial sperm banks exist in the United States; these banks are often clustered around universities where many intelligent and virile young men live. The qualities present in college students are in high demand among infertile couples trying to have a baby. Thus, approximately 50 to 90 percent of all sperm donors are college students! The remaining 10 to 50 percent of donors come from all walks of life and have a variety of interests, values, and skills.
The screening process takes from 8 weeks to 6 months depending on the sperm bank to which the man is applying. If the man is one of the lucky 5 percent of applicants who are accepted to donate, he will be paid from $40 to $100 for each semen sample. A donator can sire a maximum of 10 children and potentially make up to $6,000 in a year. Sperm donation is usually motivated by money rather than altruism.
Link of interest...
What are the Ethical Considerations for Sperm Donation? (http://www.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%20of%20Making%20Babies/spermeth.htm)
Not all donations end up impregnating single women. There are couples, very much in love with watch other who are unable to conceive because the man is shooting blanks. In a case like that they can have a baby thanks to an anonymous sperm donation. The donor should have no rights to be involved with the child and the donor should be free from any parental responsibility.
My opinion; nothing more.
Well crap. I agree with Glenn's view, therefore no fun to be had here :P. I agree with Don too, but I am missing the connection with Tanya's logic.
-f-
So you guys say if the sperm donors sperm ends up being used irresponsibly then he should have no responsibility? Just because the system is set up so that right now they don't, it doesn't mean it should stayt hat way. Sure married couples might want a child using a sperm donor, it is no different than single moms in terms of receiving the donation. What I am suggesting is that a human life is created from the sperm donation and everyone involved should be mandated to a line of succession concerning the child's well being. In other words if the mother is somehow unfit when the child is born, and no other provisions are made by her, and the clinic is strictly in the business of providing sperm not arranging other parenting options, then who is responsible for the child the taxpayers? And is everybody fine with that?
QuoteSo you guys say if the sperm donors sperm ends up being used irresponsibly then he should have no responsibility?
Absolutely; your statement is illogical. Stating that the sperm donor should be responsible for the irresponsible mother is like saying the ladder manufacturer is liable for injuries if some idiot stands on the step above the "do not stand above this step" sign, falls off striking his head, incurring brain damage that prevents him from being employed. Or would you be in favor of awarding the ladder abuser some financial award from the ladder manufacturer because he can not work anymore and the ladder company has "deep pockets"?
What do you mean by the statement "the mother is somehow unfit when the child is born"? I assume you mean a permanent situation. not temporary. She dies? Or there is a major medical trauma and she becomes a quadriplegic?
But, yes, basically the situation is the same no matter how the conception occurred. If there is no mother or other family to care for the child, then whatever systems are in place, the social safety net, kicks in. The donor is not family.
If the law was written to force the responsibility for the child onto the donor, that would quickly dry up the available sources of donors. That would be penalizing the couple with a legitimate desire for a child they cannot conceive themselves. Or is that what you'd like to see?
Quote from: tanya on February 16, 2009, 10:12:17 PM
What I am suggesting is that a human life is created from the sperm donation and everyone involved should be mandated to a line of succession concerning the child's well being.
Hmmmm... okay, let's run with your logic. In that case then, the doctor who fertilizes the woman is responsible, as is the landlord and owner of the building. The mechanic who fixed the car that allowed the woman to go to the clinic is responsible, as is the manufacturer and salesman of the car. Let's not forget the gas company, and while we're at it, let's go after the big, evil oil companies too!
And what about the old boyfriends. If they hadn't dumped her, they would have been the father, but no.... they didn't stick around. Probably liable for the poor woman's state of mind. Get them too. Oh... and her mom and dad, and any supportive siblings.
Where does the responsibility stop?
If a person chooses to voluntarily and knowingly put anything in their body, the sole responsibility lands on their shoulders, and no one else. This is true whether they used tobacco, alcohol, drugs, semen, fatty foods, whatever.
Why is it that so many people are so damn eager to look for someone else to be responsible for problems that they alone caused?
-f-
. . o O ( 12 pages on the children rant ,... and yet no visible outrage on the tax cheat treasury secretary? ) d*
ready willing and able... I simply need the pump to be primed.... ;D
I've always wondered, "what's going to happen when all these half brothers & sisters start getting hooked up together?" Since no one knows who the fathers are, how would they know if they are related or not ???
CAUTION!!! HOT COFFEE!!! Ring any bells? d*
Don, I don't know if you should talk about priming the pump on this thread. [waiting]
Quote from: tanya on February 16, 2009, 10:12:17 PM
So you guys say if the sperm donors sperm ends up being used irresponsibly then he should have no responsibility? Just because the system is set up so that right now they don't, it doesn't mean it should stayt hat way. Sure married couples might want a child using a sperm donor, it is no different than single moms in terms of receiving the donation. What I am suggesting is that a human life is created from the sperm donation and everyone involved should be mandated to a line of succession concerning the child's well being. In other words if the mother is somehow unfit when the child is born, and no other provisions are made by her, and the clinic is strictly in the business of providing sperm not arranging other parenting options, then who is responsible for the child the taxpayers? And is everybody fine with that?
Yes Tanya. An anonymous sperm donor is not responsible. It is the clinics responsibility to screen the potential mother/sperm recipient to ensure that she is a proper candidate to mentally and financially care for the child. As a business this is part of the service they are getting paid to provide. The sperm donor is not the responsible party and it should stay that way. btw...in this particular situation she knows who the donor is. Maybe he was hoping to profit from the book/movie deal as well. I don't think he or she will profit from this story because it's just so sad and ridiculous. Maybe we'll see a documentary on the situation at some point. It wouldn't be pretty and would hopefully discourage mentally challenged copy cats.
The doctor who agreed to implant this women is an idiot and should lose his license to practice medicine. Hopefully this is already being investigated. Maybe he was also hoping to profit from the movie deal? This would be in addition to the money he received from her to preform, in this situation, a ridiculous procedure. From what I understand his success rate was very low. He may have considered this an opportunity to beef up business.
Yes Tanya. The taxpayers end up being the responsible ones who end up carrying the burden for the child. In this case, the children. Of course no one wants to see an innocent child suffer. The already extremely burdened tax revenue will pay to care for these 14 children that this unstable women chose to bring into this world.
No Tanya, everyone is not fine with that by any means. Taxes are being raised all the time on hard working families and this makes it more difficult for them to care for their own children. Is that fair? Certainly not.
As for Grandma...she didn't sign up for this. Calling her names was cruel. She already had a house full of grandchildren she was helping to care for. Overnight that number more than doubled. Give her a break.
This pretty much says it all for me. Nadya was an only child, and now her folks have six, and will soon have 14. Smells at worst like revenge, and at best patently irresponsible.
(CNN) -- The California home where Nadya Suleman plans to raise her 14 children is at risk of foreclosure, CNN affiliate KTLA reported Wednesday.
Records show a notice of mortgage default was filed Feb. 9 against the home where the octuplets' mother is living.
Records show a notice of mortgage default was filed Feb. 9 against the home where the octuplets' mother is living.
Los Angeles County property records show a notice of mortgage default was filed Feb. 9 against the home of Suleman's mother, Angela Suleman, the station reported.
Angela Suleman is $23,225 behind in her mortgage payments and the three-bedroom house could be sold at an auction beginning May 5, documents say.
Suleman has said that she was raising her six children in her mother's home and planned to raise her newborn octuplets there.
News of the foreclosure is the latest twist in the tale of Suleman and her children.
Suleman, 33, had the octuplets through fertility treatments, despite being single and already having six young children and no clear source of income.
The television station could not reach Suleman or her mother for comment, because the phone number at the home had been disconnected.
A spokeswoman for Suleman recently quit because she had been flooded with death threats from people angry that Suleman is receiving disability payments and food stamps to help raise her children.
That spokeswoman, Joann Killeen, told CNN's Larry King on Monday that grandmother Angela Suleman had taken care of Suleman's six children at the home while Suleman was on bed rest for 10 weeks before giving birth to the octuplets.
"Grandma is tired," Killeen said. "Grandma and grandpa are in their 70s. You know, they've raised a daughter. I'm sure they didn't think that they were going to be helping to raise six children."
Well apparantly a former BF of the mom has stepped forward and although she denies he is the sperm donor says he will help her raise those 14 children ANYWAY because he has two children and knows it will be hard for her with 14. So you see there are nice people, helpful people who do care. I think that if a sperm donor is going to donate potential children then his liability for those children should remain with him until they are raised. In other words if the mother (or parents) carries out the potential duties, fine, he has not had to worry himself BUT once the mom/parents are unable to and particulalry in the case where no other arrangements are possiblee then yes the donor should be accountable why not. If they are automatically not accountable then what stops everyone from just using IVF and saying hey she had those kids!!! Until fairly recently that was how things were, if the coule was married then great dad was responsible but if they were not married that could be anyones child (sperm donor) but now there are tests so why should those tests prevent a sperm donor from responsibility? As far as MY thoughts go onthe thing I think everyone should have as many chldren as they want to have and care for. I ALSO think there should be FREE sterilization clinics for both sexes with nice fat stipends for having the procedures. Then the people who do not want children won t be having them and the ones who dowant children can have a bunch without everyone being all pissed off that they are paying for taking care of low income children because there wont be nearly as many to take care of. Lots of free sterilization with BIG stimulas stipends attached. That is my idea.
Did you say sterilization with stimulation?
Whoa.
Sounds exciting. ::)
Yep, a guy came forward and claims he's the donor and O-M denies that as not true. Maybe he just wants his 15 minutes of fame? ??? Maybe he's an honest to goodness good guy. That's superb.
As for...
Quotewhat stops everyone from just using IVF and saying hey she had those kids
...
That would be; the donor Dad truly loves the Mom, he is a responsible, caring father who loves his child, and so on. IVF is also too expensive for general indiscriminate use. Then there's also the loss of the fun factor. ::) Married folks do like to have fun too, as well as have kids. We've had a lot more fun than kids, but that's another story altogether and totally irrelevant too.
I absolutely agree with your statement...
QuoteI think everyone should have as many children as they want to have and care for.
... The key phrase there is "care for". Care for involves more than simply love for the child. It encompasses financial responsibility as well.
If people want to have themselves sterilized that should be an available personal choice with no financial rewards involved, just as there should be no financial rewards for having children, other than the usual income tax exemption.
Whether or not there are paternity tests is irrelevant. Donors, especially anonymous donors, are providing a service wanted by others. The donor provides one half of the required material. The prospective birth person provides the other portion. Wham! You got a baby, or two, or more. The donor is no more responsible for the baby than the guy who sells you the 2x4's you use to build a houseis. If the house falls down because the builder made the poor decision to glue the lumber together with Elmer's school glue instead of nails it is not the fault of the lumber vendor.
Sperm donors responsibility ends when the donation lands in the specimen cup.
Or, I guess with the rational that donor's should be responsible, then if someone donates blood to a person and that person survives (hallelujah!!) but then kills someone :( , then the blood donor is just as responsible and should be held responsible for the killing. ???
I see there are many opinions on this matter already but I would like to give mine as well. This woman is mentally not all there. She has since given an interview and in one sentence says she is not on welfare, but in the next, she says that she does get $475 dollars a month in foodstamps. She believes that they are not government assistance. hmmm... Also, she has been raising her first 6 babies (all from invitro) on school financial aid. she went to 6 years of school but used most of the money to raise her "kids". She also gets money because 4 of the first 6 kids are disabled in some way, which, gets her money from that. She is sick, sick, sick!! Her doctors ae unscrupulous for continuing to take money and implant more kids. There should be a psych evaluation after say 5 children!
Also, since the inital birth of the the 8 babies, she has recently lost the home she was living in. It was her parents but it was a rental they had, and no payments have been made since October, so CPS recently came and took all of the kids from her at least temporarily so already there are problems and the taxpayers are paying!!! d* d* d* ???
I would not presume to say how many children a person should have and have even considered medical help to have a child myself because it has not happened for me and I am 38 but something keeps me from going that far. I guess I am trying to have faith that it will happen naturally for me. I come from a large family, myself and 6 older brothers. My dad had 12 brothers and sisters. Our life was poor although at the time I never felt like my life was terrible and all of us grew up to be hard working good people so lets not bash on large families. They have a lot to offer and I think each family usually continues on in the manner their family has for generations and it usually works out.
I believe the for profit medical system took advantage of this womans mental health because it is clear at least to me from just one news interview that she is misguided and ill. Kind of like those people you hear about who have 50 animals in their house because they want to help them all. There heart was in the right place but mentally they had no idea what they are doing.
OK.... glad i got that off my chest... he he
I am glad to have found this forum and it is nice that it wanders to different subjects from time to time!
Have a great day all!
w* to the asylum annamay.
I still think free sterilization with a nice fat stipend attached would provide faster results than any other govt. regulations. IF they are going to get involved in peoples choices concerning family size whether it is because they have to pay for, feed or provide medical care a nice fat stipend and sterilization would save billions quick!
A welfare family recieves about $6,000 cash assistance for a year with two children. That is just cash assistance, notmedical coverage or food stamps. WEll if that one family choose a one time $6,000 sterilization stipend instead of having children the state would save the $6,000 PER YEAR PLUS the additional monies involved in food stamps and medical costs to raise the children. I am not saying Govt. should mandate it by any means but I am saying it would be a lovely cost saving initiative. Not only would it help taxpayers but families who have the number of children they want would also get a nice benefit by taking responsibility before any little "mistakes" could happen.
I am bothered by something that I see underlying your statements about either being paid to be sterilized or the alternative of paying for the children that can not be supported by ones own family. You want people to be rewarded for both good and bad behavior. That is, pay people to be sterilized or else pay for the upbringing of those people's kids. The fact that the money to pay for those policies would be coming from other hard working Americans seems to be lost on you, or at least doesn't bother you.
I strongly feel that you do not really want to get the government involved in any of this "family planning by sterilization". Every time you open a door a crack governments big foot gets firmly inserted making it impossible to close again. Start down that road and before you can say "tubal ligation" somebody will be advocating that be done as a normal part of the birth of a second child.
I'm glad to see you clarified what you mean by the sterilization payment. You are advocating a one time payment, not a stipend. A stipend is a recurring payment, like weekly, monthly or annually.
You know i am not a big advocate of welfare or just giving money to people that don't try to help themselves but IF it is really necessary why not take away welfare if you have MORE kids while you are on it and maybe we could come up with an incentive plan for young adults NOT to have children before they can take care of them. Lets say a one time payment of $10 grand, if you reach 28 years old without being a drain on the system, to use for buying a first home or something to that effect? Surely if you focus this offer first to children in disadvantaged areas it "Could" work ??? I am not saying this is a well thought out plan but surely this would both save money for the government, give young adults time to learn about responsibility, and grow up enough to fully understand the implications of having a child.
d*
I just can't let this pass.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/25/state/n103410S81.DTL
I'm speechless ???
rofl