Maybe she should wish for Birth Control for Christmas

The BBQ Pit
101

Frankly, John, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the tax money issue. The reason I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the tax money issue is that money isn’t the problem here.

The problem is that this woman is out-of-control, irresponsible and STUPID. She’s not some sort of victim, she’s a perpetrator.

I don’t suggest that there be some sort of legal solution, except in so far as is necessary to protect the best interests of the children. However, I do say that there are moral and ethical issues here. This woman’s actions are completely reprehensible. She is either a literal moron or she just doesn’t give a damn about the consequences of her actions. Either way, it is unethical for her to have any more children. In fact, it was unethical for her to have any more children several children ago. If there were public funds available to keep her in Ho-Hos and beer for life, it would still be unethical.

Light me remind you of our high-priest of pissiness’ original comment,

**
Yes, you bet. Your family size damn-well should be limited by what you can afford. While you and lissener call it “redneck eugenics,” most everyone else calls it “being a responsible parent.” Richer people can ethically have more children if they want because they can afford to take care of them. Poorer people can ethically have fewer children because they cannot affor to take care of them.

The ironic thing, of course, is that large family size in the U.S. and Europe – indeed, all over the world – is negatively corellated with income and education. In other words, richer, more educated people tend to have smaller families than poorer, less educated people.

As for the social pathology associated with unwed motherhood and extreme poverty, well, I assume you accept that the statistics make it pretty clear that both are highly correlated with extremely bad outcomes, e.g. prison, poverty, lack of education, etc. in the next generation.

The bottom line is that, while your use of the word “eugenics” is a nice touch, I don’t believe, however, anyone has suggested that this woman be forcible sterlized. However, it is not “eugenics” to condemn this woman for her bizzare behavior. Having children is not, in a moral sense, a “right.” Rather, it imposes a solemn responsibility. If you are unable to fulfil that responsibility, it is unethical for you to have children.

102

That’s “high priest of pissiness’s”–no hyphen, possessive s.

103

omigod now you owe me a new keyboard. that was hilarious.

104

[hijack]
Elenia25
You’ve been a member quite a while but you’ve only had two posts. Have you been reading the board regularly all this time? Have you just come back? If so, what made you come back?
[/hijack]

105

I had a sneaking suspicion that you would have that reaction. Well, tell me, lissener, so are you saying that you have absolutely no problem with this woman’s behavior? You think that it is morally or ethically responisble for this woman to 1) place a large burden on society and 2) bring additional children into the world with no way to support them, thus severly limiting their chances of success?

I consider what this woman is doing child abuse. Surely, lissener, you don’t believe this is a proper and acceptible way to behave?

You have criticized my opinion, but not really given me any reasons why you disagree, other than to say it’s disgusting, hateful, etc.

Are you saying that:

  1. You think all the children are by the SAME father? Are you really this naieve? Then I wonder where he is?

  2. What exactly do you think the problem is with requiring her to be on birth control to get benefits?

  3. Do you contend that having children is a right? Why? Or, do you think you have a right for society to foot the bill for your offspring? Do you think you are entitled?

  4. Do you disagree with this statement?: it’s likely they will become single teen parents themselves. It’s a widely known fact that children of teens are more likely to be teen parents themselves.

  5. You disagree with these statements?: 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. My mother has worked in the juvenile justice field for 30 years. She visits with these people every day. The vast majority of the kids in the juvenile justice system a) are from poor families b) have single mothers. If you disagree with this, please tell me why.

  6. How would society NOT benefit if we mandated birth control for people who cannot support additional children? Please tell.

  7. What is wrong with this?: “In order to receive your check, you should be checked by a doctor once a month to make sure you’re on birth control.” Why should a person this irresponsible and reckless continue to get benefits if she is not willing to at least try to avoid what got her into trouble in the first place?

  8. I was joking when I said this: Norplant dart gun isn’t a bad idea

  9. I know this is a controversial statement: “I don’t think that is really the type of genetic stock that should be carried on.” But I am sorry, that is how I feel. It sounds like this woman is severely lacking in intelligence, responsibility and mothering skills. I don’t think this person is fit to be a mother.

lissener, please tell me why you think I am hateful. I care about these children. I care about society. I am probably the most liberal person I know. But through my work, I have seen lots of statistic on the plight of poor people and it makes me very sad for these children. Did you know many states spend more than one-fourth of their budgets on medical care for the poor? The vast majority of them are single mothers. Your use of the term redneck eugenics is not even worth responding too, because there is nothing I have ever said that comes close to this.

I would be very interested to hear you propose a solution to this problem. What could/should be done about this? Or do you think it is perfectly acceptable and should be allowed to continue?

106

Another thought. It seems lissener has a large sense of entitlement. It seems he (?) thinks it is everyone’s right to expect that society foot the bill for all of your offspring and that you should not be expected to contribute anything to their support. I would be truly interested in knowing why he thinks this.

Kids are very expensive. It is especially hard if it’s only one parent raising one child. But one parent raising 10 children? Without a job? Without money? Facing this prospect, wouldn’t any reasonable, responsible person take any and all steps to avoid making the situation worse, not only for herself, but for the sake of her children? What is so wrong with asking her to stop making the situation worse?

I honestly don’t mind helping out unfortunate people with reasonably sized families. I also expect that they should do whatever it takes to help themselves too. And that includes ceasing to add more mouths to feed to the family. Otherwise I don’t feel they are deserving of the help. lissener, why do you feel that someone who takes no steps to improve their situation remains deserving of help? Of course the innocent children deserve the help. The very best thing that could happen to them if for them to be raised by responsible caring individuals who can offer them a chance, a future.

I really want to know why lissener thinks it is a right to have children and a right to expect society to support them. Just because you can reproduce doesn’t mean you should…we’re humans, and we have a thinking mind that gives us the reasoning ability to determine whether or not we are able to have and support children. We don’t have the right to much in this world…a right to a roof over our head? A right to food to eat? A right to a job? None of this is a right. We all must take steps to attain and maintain these basic tenants of life…why does lissener think that this woman has the right to be exempt from all the same requirements the rest of society abides by? Just because she is irresponsible? I just don’t get you, **lissener.

107

Nyctea, I’m not sure I’d waste anymore of my energy on someone who thrives on this type of attention. Although you were highly criticized, I don’t see where any SOLUTIONS to the problems raised were given, only trying to shame you for stating the obvious… this woman is taking on more than she can handle at the risk of her children.

Single mother + 10 children + no job = bleak outlook for all involved

Life is hard enough, why continue to bring children into the world when you are not able to care for them in the way children deserve to be cared for? And by that, I do not mean material things. She’s 32 and she has 10 kids. Her oldest child is 16. She has 10 kids under 16 years old. How much attention and care do you think one person is able to give 10 small children?

I guess, according to lissener, we should all just smile and hand over our taxes and donations and say “Have at it. I hear Bobby Brown is in town if you’re looking for another child.”

Do I think she should be sterilized? No. Obviously she has no regard for the help she’s been given because instead of realizing how she got herself in this situation to begin with, she continues her behavior and lives her life on HER terms while someone else foots the bill. That is SELFISH behavior, yet lissener thinks anyone who opposes it makes him/her feel dirty just reading their words?

Maybe, since lissener is so much more enlightened and kind hearted than we are, he/she should contact the organization taking donations for this family and offer his/her home and income to further support her lifestyle. That way lissener would actually be lending a helping hand instead of dishing out sanctimonious, holier-than-thou horseshit.

108

lissener, please, get the ever loving fuck over yourself.

I think we may have been reading different threads. I didn’t see the majority of posters here outraged that the woman is on welfare. I see the majority of the posters here outraged because the woman has 10 children, no job and lives in a one bedroom apartment.

Should this woman be ashamed? Of course! She’s abusing these children! No child should have to live like that. It’s not safe, nor healthy.

Who gives two shits whether or not she’s the exception or the rule? People are outraged at this woman’s behavior.

And they have a right to be.

Take your misplaced rightous indignation to a place that it’s warrented. It just looks silly here.

109

And don’t bother responding to my post with nothing more than spelling corrections.

That’s as lame as your position here.

110

I imagine lissener is reading the thread like this:

Blah blah blah blah lissener blah blah blah. Blah, lissener, blah blah BLAH blah blah lissener blah.

Kinda like that Gary Larson cartoon where a dog is getting yelled at by his owner and all he understands is his name.

111

That’s spelled double-you aitch oh oh ess aitch.

112

lissener, are you out there? I do believe I posted a laundry list of questions for you, I am really interested to hear you explain your view on this…interested to hear what your solutions would be.

113

Where is the rule that, before I can point out flaws in YOUR solutions, I have to bring to the table all the answers to the issue, tied up in a neat bundle? I don’t have to be a chicken to know a bad egg (or spout lame cliches, cluck cluck).

I get really tired of that lame non-defense of an indefensible position. You say something stupid, someone goes, “That was stupid,” and your entire defense consists of going, “Well, let’s hear YOU say something smarter.”

Well, yeah, maybe later, but meanwhile, the point I’m making here is that what YOU said was stupid.

As far as your laundry list, this’ll get me flamed again, but to be honest, I’ll invoke a private communication from another doper: “If you put a million monkeys in a room with a million keyboards, half of them will register at the Straight Dope.”

Just because you can type doesn’t mean I’m obliged to devote any time to you, nyctea; frankly such an ill-considered rationalization for aggressive eugenics horrifies and sickens me to the point that I don’t really want to waste any more time engaging with you.

114
115

NEW SIG!

116

That’s the thing, lissener, I don’t recall you pointing out any flaws, other than saying they’re stupid…but why? We are all on the edge of our seats waiting to hear your explanation. If you feel so strongly against what many of us have said, why can’t you offer some sort of alternative view, backed up with explanations?

OK lissener, run away! Run away! Is it because you cannot back up your argument? I suspect so. Explain why you consider what I said “agressive eugenics.” Tell me why it is “ill-considered.” Explain why you think people are entitled to have society unconditionally support their offspring. It’s really bad form to come here and criticize my views without backing up your criticism. At this point, it seems you’re just being a nay-sayer just for the sake of getting people riled up. I don’t think you really have any true views or thoughts on this. But maybe you will prove me wrong, who knows?

You already wasted a lot of time before criticizing the majority view in this thread, so why stop now? Or do you have something better to do, like going out and helping all those poor single mothers you care so much about?

117

Well, you’ve certainly flung your share of feces. :stuck_out_tongue:

118

I totally know what you’re saying lissener!

I mean asking people to back up what they say?

That’s crazy talk!

:rolleyes:

I really am shocked at your responses here. Although quite inflammatory, I never considered you a stupid poster before. At least I thought you were mature and intelligent enough to back up your postings.

Guess I was wrong.

119

I’m beginning to miss you, **lissener!

120

Who the hell is talking about eugenics? Forced sterilization and being required to use birth control as a condition to receiving benefits when a person has demonstrated repeatedly their irresponsible breeding behavior aren’t the same thing.

And what eugenics are you referring to? Eugenics against blacks or poor people? You stated in a prior post that this lady is an exception to the rule, so what kind of eugenics would be taking place here if the state made benefits conditional on using birth control?

I’m afraid you have me flummoxed.

I get really tired of that lame non-defense of an indefensible position. You say something stupid, someone goes, “That was stupid,” and your entire defense consists of going, "Well, let’s hear YOU say something smarter."

What about his/her position is indefensible? You haven’t addressed any of the points made except to make unsubstianted remarks about “eugenics”.