Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

14 kids...

Recs

26

February 01, 2009 – Comments (14)

Market Ticker put it very well the degree of irresponsibility with this woman who had 8 babies this past week.

I don't mean to be callus to the families of murder victims, but some of these investigations and trials have gone completely amok as well.  In Vancouver we had the pig farmer that murdered and ground up his victims in a grinder.  The site was closed off for over a year and forensic teams sifted through mountains of dirt.  Tax payers ended up being on the hook to pay for this guy's defense to go through the mountain of paper work huge teams of forensic workers compiled during the investigation.  None of it brings the victims back and conviction for a single murder puts him away.  What a wasteful over kill of taxpayer's resources.

I think the examples are endless.

14 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On February 01, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Option1307 (30.00) wrote:

Wow, truly appalling. I normally don't follow Market Ticker, but I just might have to start.

I really think the link speaks to the heart of the matter. We as a society (well at least down here in the US) have completely lost touch with reality. As shocking as this article is, it's not the least bit surprising to me. This is who we are as a country, as a people. We demand everything and feel we are entitled to it whether it is reasonable or not, as in this case here. I'm not sure when/how we came to this point, but it is honestly absurd...

 

Report this comment
#2) On February 01, 2009 at 3:17 AM, BenGriffin71 (27.99) wrote:

A stark reminder that our refusal to debate the effects of, or even mention eugenics, has, instead of avoiding problems, exaserbated problems.

 

It is poilitical suicide to even mention eugenics, unless it is in condemnation of WWII Natzi Germany.  Yet, nearly every federal program carries with it huge implications concerning eugenics.

 It is as if, we decided we are against cancer, so no one is allowed to mention cancer, to study it, to make changes based on it, or otherwise adjust to minimize the problem.

 

Ask yourself, 'since the time that we have decided not consider the effects on human heredity, what effects have we actually had upon human heredity?'  Or less acceptably, I ask you to consider, 'what exactly are we breeding for, since the time we decided that not looking woudl make it better, .. what we are breeding for?

I suggest it is a sad, self loathing, self righteous, indignant, utterly dependent, nearly moronic, monstrosity that we are cooking up in our unmentionable kettle.

Report this comment
#3) On February 01, 2009 at 3:39 AM, BenGriffin71 (27.99) wrote:

I realize that it is likely an untenable postion for a lawmaker currently (perhaps political winds are shifting), but i would like to see two law inacted.

 

1. Manadatory reversable sterilization as a requirement to be elegible for most government entitlements.

 

2.  A substancial tax on every child after the first coming out of a uterus.  Something to the tune of $30,000.00. 

 

I know $30,000.00  won't pay for even a tenth of the expense to the state of admitting one of these little free loaders, but they are getting in for free currently.  We have to start somewhere.  They don't have jobs, and don't have any likely prospects of being gainfully employed in the next decade.  They never bring any money or assets with them.  They cause substancial racket making many people lose countless hours of sleep.  They can't even speak the language!  Babies are the one immigrant that should certainly pay a high entry tax, but right now they just stream in, unchecked.  The problem is not at our border with Mexico.  We need the spotlights aimed at the uterus!

 

All kidding aside, tell your congressman to support my legislation should it come up.

Report this comment
#4) On February 01, 2009 at 7:46 AM, abitare (50.12) wrote:

Good post good find.

Report this comment
#5) On February 01, 2009 at 11:44 AM, EverydayInvestor (< 20) wrote:

Ben - speaking of eugenics, it is partly because we are afraid of the US becoming 'non-white' that we subsidize kids in the first place (welfare, tax credits). Other nations do even more to subsidize kids for the same reason (France, Quebec). I find it apalling to have the government force sterilizations. Why not just get rid of the government subsidies?

Report this comment
#6) On February 01, 2009 at 11:49 AM, loriyacht (32.57) wrote:

OK - look, the woman has many screws loose - no amount of gov't interference will correct this. 

But how about her doctor?  One assumes the doctor must have some degree of intelligence.  Why did the fertility doctor agree to do this?  What fertility doctor would have implanted even three embryos in this woman?  That doctor should have his/her  license pulled immediately - and it would be fair if the doctor was responsible financially for these kids, but that will never happen.

 

Report this comment
#7) On February 01, 2009 at 12:58 PM, kdakota630 (29.61) wrote:

Excellent link.

Report this comment
#8) On February 01, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Option1307 (30.00) wrote:

loriyacht

But how about her doctor?

Ya who cares about personal responsibilty, it's all the doctors  fault!

Ok I'm kidding, but I think my point is valid. Obviously this doctor should not have have done this. Providing more babies to a woman who cannot afford them is potentiall unethical, just plain dumb if nothing else. However, there are several things to be noted.

1) Implanting many embryos is common practice, many embryos do not attact to the uterus wall and thus don't make it, i.e. no baby. This practice of multiple embryos being implanted is one reason why multiple births are a common "side effect" of In vitro fertilization.

2) There are many ridiculous laws out there that provent doctors from acting with common sense and "ethical" in their eyes. I don't know the specifics of this case, but it is common for doctors to fear being sued for discrimination if they do not provide this service to this woman. Doesn't this just scream lawsuit. "A doctor refuses to provide a baby to a woman, simply because she is poor..." Laugh if you want, this is a likely scenario that is all too common. Laws that seem good in nature, are frequently twisted and morphed into very ugly tools of manipulation.

Removing his license is not the answer...

EverydayInvestor

I find it apalling to have the government force sterilizations. Why not just get rid of the government subsidies?

Forced government sterilizations is never a good idea. There are many complications that can arise from medical operations. Who should be sterilized? When? There are endless amounts of questions that would have to be answered, not to mention if it is ethically just.

I like your point here, remove the incentive and subsidies that there currently are. You don't need "prevent" these events from occuring by extreme measures or even penalties, you just need to remove the encouragement that is out there.

BenGriffin71

I'm not for, forced sterilizations; however, there is something to be said about the current breeding practice that many employ.

This is an oversimplification and I'm sure "offensive", but honestly, if you cannot afford to raise your child properly (whatever that is), then you shouldn't be having one. Period. You can't prevent people from having a baby without bringing on a gripload of legislation and lawsuits, so simply take away the incentives that are out there.

Report this comment
#9) On February 01, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Mary953 (78.20) wrote:

Option, Stop that this instant!!  You're being logical again!

Report this comment
#10) On February 01, 2009 at 5:44 PM, eldemonio (98.61) wrote:

Forced sterilization?  Eugenics?  Seriously, who would make the decision to sterilize someone? Government?  OMFG - what a nightmare in the making.

The reason that Eugenics is tied to racism and ugly shat is because that is precisely what it is rooted in.  Anyone spouting off about the benefits of Eugenics clearly has no understanding of the origin of Eugenics.

The problem, as noted by Option, lies in the fact that our government has distorted the idea that everybody deserves a shot at success to a very dangerous idea of everybody deserving success.  We have the right to life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness.  Does that mean we will be happy?  No.  That means that we have the right to try and be happy. 

If having 14 kids makes you happy - great, but if you can't support your own happiness, it is not up to me and government to bail your broke a$$ out.  On a side note - can you imagine paying this counseler money for her advice when she clearly has some serious baby hoarding issues to work through, but I digress.   

Sterilizing stupid people is not the answer.  It might be a quick fix in the short term, but what happens when government starts sterilizing those who disagree, dissent, or post stupid a$$ blog comments?  

Report this comment
#11) On February 01, 2009 at 7:39 PM, dwot (37.11) wrote:

The article says her procedure to implant the embryos was subidized.  I can maybe see arguments for a childless couple, only maybe, but a single woman with 6 kids already?

The only subsidy should should have qualified for was tubes tied.

Report this comment
#12) On February 01, 2009 at 8:33 PM, jszoke01 (24.24) wrote:

The lady's a nut.  I want a kid, but my wife and I are holding off so we can be sure we're set financially, which is the first step (IMHO) of nurturing and sustaining a happy family. 

We are now punished emotionally for our responsible behavior.

Sickening.

Report this comment
#13) On February 02, 2009 at 1:34 AM, tonylogan1 (28.18) wrote:

Idiocracy was a great vastly unappreciated movie. Maybe real life is too close to art

Report this comment
#14) On February 02, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Imperial1964 (97.84) wrote:

Octuplet's mom wants $2M from media interviews.

I want $2M too.  Perhaps I should have been ridiculously irresponsible with my reproductive capabilities.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement