Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only reason that Nadya Suleman is being targeted with as much animosity as she has been is because she has a name that we know and a record for the US. Had she not set the record, the same underlying problems would have carried on business as usual.
Was it something like 20 years ago when the woman began paying addicts to become steralized? It is my belief that this would not even be an argument if the US did not have (and to an extent still does) this huge part in the eugenics movement.
If I remember correctly, she already had one special needs kid. There is a huge chance that these eight are going to have developmental delays. Finding someone to adopt these kids is going to be hard. They aren't just going to have problems as babies when they are cute, they could have life long learning disabilities.
You run into the same problem when you start seeing children that are born with cocaine in their system or AFS. Then no one wants these kids because they have huge problems especially when they aren't cute anymore. The mother continues to have babies and they go right into the system and the father's continue to make babies but does not take responsibility for them.
I doubt very seriously that we will see this country make a move towards forced sterilization or requiring potential parents to get a psych evaluation. I, equally doubt, that people who are mentally ill are going to say, gee I can only have two because that is all the government is willing to pay for. The whole mentally ill thang gets in the way of that.
Once you start down that road then your looking at people who can only have children dependent on their IQ. Then we get the whole kidnapping situation again based on stereotypes. We have history. This is not some new socialist thing.
If the government made parents get an IQ test before having kids you would have a heck of a lot less kids. The Darwin awards and any number of stupid stories that are floating around are a great proof of that.
But on another side of the story - everyone who was on Welfare when Congress "reformed" it immeidately had their children declared "special needs" - whether they were or not - so that they could swap 'em over to Social Security. The schools get more money for providing the written documentation, even the referrals, for doing it, so they are co-conspirators. The children may not be "special needs" at all - but if treated that way long enough, will act, think, and believe that they are, and never amount to anything.
Miss. Suleman expected 8 premature children by this multiple birth. Just the first year, a premature baby costs $41,610 help reduce cost: The Cost to Business . Multiply by 8 embros, the doctors were guaranteed to add $333K for the first year, in addition to the 6 children she already had. $1 million hospital bill, $1 million debt already, college tuition, child care... With expenses like this, it is assured that the children will either be welfare dependent, or will lack sufficient supervision and health care. That is one stipulation of child endangerment. If the woman had more than 10 cats, she would be considered cruel as the potential problems would be obvious, probably arrested, and the cats would be confiscated. Why can you raise children with less chance of peace than you can cats?
What everybody said this woman is a wack job However I do think that this (thank god) is a highly unusual situation so we should not get carried away with this and let our thoughts be governed by one ...well idiot
The In Vitro part might be unusual, but the situation is not. I know a woman with 8 children that she cannot support. She just lives off of public assistance. I work in a low income area. There are many parents with 5+ children with no way to support the children other than welfare. They live in public housing or recieve section 8 vouchers. They pay basically nothing for housing and are given food stamps. The children go to school for free. They basically have no real expenses other than a phone bill. Did I mention that many of these women are in their mid 20s?
I actually don't think that a cap as to how many children the governmet will support is enough. All public assistance should be temporary in addition to no extra money past 1 child.
Procreation is not a burden - government is. In a free society, a competing mesh of charitable organizations would do far more good than welfare does today through original ideas and innovation. The government doesn't really care about lifting people out of poverty, it wants to keep everyone ignorant and dependent!
But on another side of the story - everyone who was on Welfare when Congress "reformed" it immeidately had their children declared "special needs" - whether they were or not - so that they could swap 'em over to Social Security. The schools get more money for providing the written documentation, even the referrals, for doing it, so they are co-conspirators. The children may not be "special needs" at all - but if treated that way long enough, will act, think, and believe that they are, and never amount to anything.
I think one of the biggest mistakes that was made was that we are going to pay for one year of schooling. Hairdressing and data entry(that one is pretty much obsolete). Then they make one dollar over the mark and don't leave the poverty line. Akin to "retraining" those that have lost their jobs and taking a few thousand people and training them all in heat and air conditioning. So, the region becomes flooded. This directly impacts the health industry because the working poor will not go to a doctor because they don't qualify and they wait until they are in excrutiating pain and wind up in the emergency room. By that time, they are so far gone that there is a lot of money at stake.
I agree that the schools have become co-conspirators. The Zero Tolerance policy has a direct impact on this. A school decides that they are not going to tolerate anything like fights. So, it is not relevent if one kid is being bullied on a continous basis-they refuse to protect the kid, they refuse to allow the kid to protect himself and they throw them out. Sometimes they just work to throw the kid out and it is not relevent if the kid is acting out. That is besides the point. So, the kid is facing expulsion and the only way to keep the kid in school is to have him/her classified as special needs.
But here is the kicker, there are those kids that are most certainly special needs kids and are classified as special needs but somehow have not been tested to the extent that they should have been its mindblowing. Cognitive ability. So, you run into schools that are not willing to pay for qualified staff and are seeminly unable to go through with the testing in a timely manner. Someone is dropping the ball.
Procreation is not a burden - government is. In a free society, a competing mesh of charitable organizations would do far more good than welfare does today through original ideas and innovation. The government doesn't really care about lifting people out of poverty, it wants to keep everyone ignorant and dependent!
I'm in full agreement about the role of government, and these ridiculous welfare programs. When these public assistance programs were created, they were never intended to be permanent, life supporting handouts from Uncle Sam. They were created as temporary relief for those people who faced hardships, such as unemployment or disability. I think even FDR didn't expect these programs to become permanent fixtures in our society. Unfortunately, the liberals/Dems who followed in his footsteps increased the role of government even further. That's why we have a huge welfare state, and many people who are dependent on it, but still living in poverty.
Procreation is a burden when people have children that they cannot fully afford on their own means. If people want to have kids, fine ... but they need to make sure they are not taking one cent of taxpayer money when their biological clocks start ticking, as the saying goes. You know as well as I do that most people who pop out babies don't have the financial means to afford their upbringing. Almost everybody who has children receives some kind of public assistance ... and that includes (but not limited to) public education, which is another topic in itself, but a huge burden on taxpayers!
A lot of kids get labeled special needs in order to get "crazy checks." Parents even coach them how to act up in school to get labeled. And "special needs" can go from barely having a brain stem (as a co-worker's kid is, costing everyone millions of dollars to be flaccid, blind, mental ability of a newborn, unable to eat or drink- and they keep saving her in the ER). ADD is a common diagnosis, and that could qualify as "special needs" even if the kid doesn't have any particular special treatment. It's become another word for "runs wild with too much soda and not enough discipline). Etc. Etc.
I work in a psychatric hospital. Many patients have more than two children. I can only think of one or two co-workers who have more than one or two. Also, I think well-meaning social workers get people into "the system" when a person has a treatable mental episode or a substance problem, and then they're on the dole for everything for life. Not only is it a disgrace, it takes away from those people who genuinely need help- seems it's hard for them to get help.
Limiting anything regarding reproduction won't likely fly because it assumes some sort of abortion option. That's fine by me, but I don't make the rules.
Here I choke as I agree with Newt Gingrich, 1984- that if someone has kids they can't take care of, remove the kids, to group residence or orphanage or some such. Does that mean "poor people aren't allowed to have kids?" No. It just means that you can't keep kids if you can't take care of them.
In your dreams.
And some people accuse me of being a wild-eyed liberal! Must be because I live in Massachusetts.
The lack of procreation has been used to justify and rationalize discrimination against gays.
The irony of this procreation argument, is that this has been one of the many irrational and ridiculous reasons people rationalize and justify hating gay people. Because somehow, if people accept us, and give us the civil rights we deserve, that this would be promoting zero population growth. I know it sounds ridiculous, but if you remember old talk shows, like Phil Donahue et. al then you know what I'm talking about. And yes, the population explosion IS a ticking time bomb, people just refuse to believe it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
However I do think that this (thank god) is a highly unusual situation so we should not get carried away with this and let our thoughts be governed by one ...well idiot
The lack of procreation has been used to justify and rationalize discrimination against gays.
