Amberlei, I completely agree with you.
It seems to me that those children are in a situation where DFACS could possibly take the children away, anyway.
It comes from the notion that your right to procreate is inviolate, no matter how many kids you want to have, whether carelessly, or intentionally, and no matter how ill-equipped you are to raise them.
Your right to procreate ends at my wallet.
Actually Amberlei, considering the living conditions, I agree.
If she can support them, fine. Wanting a big family is one thing.
Getting one that you can’t take care of is another.
Yep… and the oldest is 16… meaning she was 16 (or 15) when she got knocked up and pregnant.
It’s admirable that someone that young would take the responsibility of caring for a kid. Odds are she wasn’t ready for it. It’s just a shame she didn’t seem to learn anything from that. She may be against using birth control. And pro-life. But even then she needs to take measures not the extend herself beyond any means of supporting her young.
I know several Catholic families that refuse to use birth control. One of them has 12 (!) kids. Yet both parents hold steady jobs. Two of the kids are through college, another one in, and the rest growing up. The household is a madhouse sometimes, but they still have the means to help the kids grow up healthy.
This woman lives in a one-bedroom apartment. And is unemployed. And doesn’t seem to have a man in her life (at least not one shown in the article). Sad how she let her life spin out of control like this. I really feel for those kids. Probably a half-dozen in that one bedroom, and another 4 on couches or sleeping bags or something…
Foster care can be awful but I don’t see how it could be any worse than living in a one bedroom apartment with ten other people.
I’m shocked she hasn’t been investigated by Child Protective Services. I don’t know if she’s abusing the kids but if she had that many children in that small of a space she’s certainly neglecting them. There’s no way she can consider herself a competent parent under her present circumstances.
If I were one of her neighbors I’d certainly consider calling CPS on her.
Screw the monitor - Revtim owes me a fresh set of Depends.
Freaking brilliant.
Regards,
Shodan
Like anal sex? 
My wife’s cousin is a dirt-poor farmer who lives in a small town in Nebraska. His wife stays home and takes care of the nine kids. And despite the extremely tight money situation, the kids are all growing up to be polite, intelligent and industrious. I dunno how they do it*, but my hat is off to them.
For the woman mentioned in the OP, Amberlei’s solution seems like the best option available. It’s harsh, but a lot less harsh than many of the alternatives. At least the eldest is now at an age where he can work (albeit at some crappy fast-food job) and bring in some extra income for the family.
*Raise the kids so well, I mean. I do know how they got them in the first place.
I wonder if it’s legal to offer to extend her welfare if she’d agree to a tubal. Could that be considered coercion?
. . . I understand it is cheaper by the dozen . . .
Exactly!
I just wasn’t going to come out and say it…
This woman reminds me of a joke I heard a few years ago.
A woman gets married at 18, has 10 kids with her husband, and then he dies.
She gets married again, has 12 more kids, and her second husband dies. Then she croaks.
At the funeral, the minister says, “At last, they are together.”
Someone asks, “Excuse me, Father. But do you mean her and her first husband, or her and her second husband?”
The minister says, “I mean her legs.”
Sorry but I’m just not buying this.
My husband’s older sister became pregnant in high school.
It was a small farming community where everyone knew everyone and most likely gossiped if you wore a new dress to school.
Her parents were very active in both the church and after school programs like 4H-pillars of the community so to speak.
When X informed her folks that she was pregnant, they decided as a family, that the very best thing to do would be to put the baby up for adoption.
As their religion forbade abortion, it was never an option.
My MIL and FIL loved their daughter and although I’m sure they were embarrassed by the situation (this was the late 60’s and being an unwed mother still had a strong social stigma attached), but they refused to ship her off to some kind of home and lie either.
Nor did they attempt to force a marriage.
No, they stood by her and held their heads up.
Ironically after 3 or 4 years, X ended up by marrying the same young man.
When I asked her if how she felt about what had happened, she admitted that part of her will always mourn the child she never knew.
However, she is the first to acknowledge that they were in no way prepared to raise a child at that stage of their lives.
Now, before y’all start jumping up and down, I’m more than willing to admit that some teenagers are very mature and perfectly capable of doing a good job as parents.
However, many are not.
I think that far too many young unwed mothers decide to keep their babies instead of offering them for adoption because they’re more concerned with what they want rather then the best solution ultimately for the child.
Shit! I have trouble taking care of one child by myself. I cannot imagine having more.
I bet that apartment is real clean and tidy. Ick.
I’d go as far to say that the vast majority of teenagers who get pregnant are not capable of doing a good job as parents. The few teens who are mature enough to handle it are also usually the ones who do what is neccessary to avoid the situation.
As for your second point, I’m not sure what to think. Would someone really keep a baby for their own benefit? I mean, it’s a HUGE commitment. Not being a parent, I know I can’t properly put myself in that situation. Still, it seems to me a young unwed mother thinking of herself would be all the more likely to have an abortion or put a kid up for adoption, since it’s much less of a financial and time commitment.
Or are you saying the mothers might keep it for their own emotional well-being?
Now, I’m no expert SuperNova but I have read a number of studies on young unwed mothers and there does seem to be a underlying attitude that the baby will fufill some emotional vacuum in the mother’s lives.
Sorry but I don’t have the cites off hand.
I have personally met two teenage mothers who, when questioned as to why they decided to keep the babies both answered “So I’ll have some one to love me unconditionally.”
Well, to be honest, they didn’t use the word unconditionally but the meaning was pretty damn clear.
One has since discovered that an infant is indeed a tremendous amount of work and has abrogated most of the responsibilty to her parents.
The other married and is struggling to make ends meet , both economically and emotionally.
You see, from what I could deduce, those girls were both pretty clueless about of how much effort and commitment it really takes to raise a child.
That’s one of the reasons that a number of high schools have started the program where kids are forced to take care of a sack of sugar or an egg etc. in parenting classes.
That baby factory disgusts me. I wouldn’t doubt it if each child was by a different father. This woman should be required to be on birth control or get “fixed” in order to keep receiving assistance. Having children is not a right, because you don’t have the right to use my taxes to raise a litter of fatherless children. You don’t have the right to put such a burden on society. And in the long run, these children will end up costing society much more…it’s likely they will become single teen parents themselves; it’s likely they too will be poor; it’s likely they won’t go to college; it’s probable some of them will end up in prison. The list could go on. Society would only benefit if we mandated birth control for people who cannot support their children. In order to receive your check, you should be checked by a doctor once a month to make sure you’re on birth control. (Norplant dart gun isn’t a bad idea.)
And as stupid as this woman seems to be, I don’t think that is really the type of genetic stock that should be carried on.
One other thought: why does the state continue to cut this woman checks instead of tracking down the deadbeat dads and forcing them to pay? Truly disgusting.
Babies do not love you.
Babies will not resolve any emotional voids in your life.
Babies are hardwired from conception to form attachments to their caregivers because (surprise, surprise!) THAT’S WHERE THE FOOD, SHELTER, WARMTH AND 24-HOUR ASSWIPING SERVICE COMES FROM!
Human beings from conception to about 4-5 years old are the most selfish, self-interested, egoistic creatures on the face of the earth. They need to be taught how to fend for themselves and be considerate of other people. This complicates child-raising no end, of course, but it is necessary for the infant’s survival. Babies cry because they can’t change their own diapers, call a doctor, or operate a microwave oven on their own.
Society would only benefit if we mandated birth control for people who cannot support their children. In order to receive your check, you should be checked by a doctor once a month to make sure you’re on birth control.
Sounds good to me but one question: what do we do with people who AREN’T on any kind of welfare yet keep cranking out the puppies and can’t afford them? Is it okay to intentionally bring a child into a situation like that as long as the public isn’t paying for it?