Don't Have A Litter, Lady
"Somebody needs to pay for all my kids," rails the woman with 15 kids (12 are minors now living with her) and three babydaddies. (10 of the kids are from one man -- her "fiancé," who's in jail.)
In anthropology, this is what's called a "fast life history." More on that from this blog item, "Why We Need To Be More Like Elephants Than Bunnies," from the Human Behavior and Evolution Society conference:
Life History Theory, per Gangestad and Kaplan, "provides a framework that addresses how, in the face of trade-offs, organisms should allocate time and energy to tasks and traits in a way that maximizes their fitness." Time and energy used for one purpose diminish the time and energy the person or organism can put to another.Fast life history involves "early reproduction, reduced investment in each offspring, and high reproductive rate." AJ Figueredo, who talked yesterday, explained to me that rabbits have a fast life history (pumping out offspring fast, small, and in volume), where elephants have a slow life history, with a long gestational period and have one big baby that's protected by all the other female elephants.
AJ, who's a meticulous researcher, found that slow life history makes a positive difference in humans. It's linked to low levels of sexual coercion, fewer anti-female sentiments, reduced levels of negative feelings toward other groups, fewer disordered eating behaviors, reduced levels of socially deviant behavior, higher levels of executive function (the chief executive part of your brain), and reduced levels of intimate partner violence.
Back to our child extruder here...somebody needs to pay, indeed -- to pay this woman (or donate to Project Prevention or an organization like that) to get her to get her tubes tied. It's challenging for a stable, two-parent family (with a breadwinner instead of a jailbird) to manage and properly care for more than a few children. Tragic that this woman just squeezes kids out like they're gobs of toothpaste.
Oprah will pay her to come to her show and give her a book deal. Giving lowlifes free money is her pasttime.
Or Maybe Obama will want her to be a supreme court justice because she "understands" how a mother with 15 kids feels(all in the name of diversity)
Redrajesh at December 2, 2011 1:17 AM
It'll eventually come down to compulsory birth control, with pubescent girls having to line up for a monthly Depo-Provera injection, or something similar. Or perhaps only the irresponsible ones would be subject to such measures, similar to the "one bite" rule followed regarding vicious dogs.
Robert Evans at December 2, 2011 3:03 AM
Make no mistake - this sort of thing is why astonishing murder rates occur in Africa, for one instance, and to a lesser degree in some American cultures. This makes life cheap. Where there is no infrastructure to absorb new people, they die.
No, we can't change that. Not now.
At least one of her kids will be a bullet stop.
I wonder if it will ever be acceptable to recognize that some people just do not have the tools to cope - and that the ability of nameless "others" to pick up their slack is not infinite?
Radwaste at December 2, 2011 4:03 AM
"Somebody needs to pay for all my kids"
Um...why? Sure, we feel sorry for the kids, but there is zero reason to feel sorry for the mother. This is typical inner-city black culture: women having lots of kids with many different men - in the sure knowledge that society (usually in the form of welfare) will bail them out.
There's a very simple cause-and-effect at work here: subsidize something, and you will get more of it. Society should stop subsidizing children born to single parents. Within very few years, the birthrates will plummet.
I can here it now: "But think of the children!" I am...just a bit longer term than putting tomorrow's food on the table. Kids born to intact families have all sorts of advantages.
a_random_guy at December 2, 2011 4:38 AM
OK I get that this is a bad thing for her and her kids but... My hubby and I are about to have our 8th child. We have life insurance for both of us an extra policy that pays me monthly for 5 years and pays off my house should anything happen to him.
Now most of my kids are 20 months to 4 years apart so she had to really be popping them out every year, still, I don't like the calls for mandatory sterilization. Just stop paying welfare and this kind of thing would stop. I already get enough crap when I take my kids out if the mood in this country goes back that direction we are in trouble.
My great grandmother, a Native American, got married late in life and had my grandmother. The "family planning people" realized they had been mistaken in believing that she was infertile and promptly(and forcibly) sterilized her. She went mental after they did it and my grandmother grew up an only child with an unstable mother due to all this. And they weren't on welfare. My grandfather was a carpenter who made violins as a hobby. I can understand wanting her to take responsibility for her children but this should not include forcing anyone into anything.
Imagine how you would feel if there were a group of people opposed to your philosophies deciding whether or not you would get permission to bear children. This is a very real possibility. You should not consider laws for others that you your self would not be willing to follow.
JosephineMO7 at December 2, 2011 6:11 AM
Someone needs to be held accountable? Yes, you, you crazy freak. This part of the Bell Curve book was certainly true, the lower the IQ, the more kids people seem to produce. 10 kids with that loser guy...sheesh.
Catherine at December 2, 2011 6:17 AM
Despite the deserved animosity towards this woman, the state did step in to protect the children, both in terms of meeting their basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, and by keeping the mom away from them.
She got her wish - someone did step up to the plate for those unfortunate kids. Her accountability has already included some jail time for being an idiot - and she should get used to wearing orange jumpsuits, with her attitude and behavior she will be getting a different kind of gov't food, clothing and shelter.
Gary G at December 2, 2011 6:20 AM
"Someone needs to be held accountable." Yes, her! She did this!
There are few, if any, true victims. People do it to themselves! She's not even trying to meet the rest of us half-way. If she continues to act in bad faith, why should the rest of us try to help?
Tyler at December 2, 2011 6:21 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/02/dont_have_a_lit.html#comment-2823280">comment from JosephineMO7OK I get that this is a bad thing for her and her kids but... My hubby and I are about to have our 8th child. We have life insurance for both of us an extra policy that pays me monthly for 5 years and pays off my house should anything happen to him.
Josephine, a question -- not an assumption -- for you: Do you feel that you can really care and provide adequate attention to eight children? Why do you have so many?
And I don't believe in mandatory sterilization.
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2011 6:28 AM
Growing up around the Plain Folks (Amish, Mennonite, etc.), I knew (and am still friends with) lots of families with 10+ children. These families lived, worked, and played together. The parents took care of their kids without any assistance from anyone, and did a good job of it. They raised good, kind, well-mannered, happy kids who went on to be good, kind, well-mannered, happy, PRODUCTIVE adults who could and did repeat the cycle.
This is not about whether or not someone should have a large family, but about making sure you don't have more kids than you can take care of. This woman's problem is not that she has 15 kids, but that she thinks that the world owes her something for her ability to make babies she can't care for.
The Original Kit at December 2, 2011 6:46 AM
Yes I believe I can. We do it every day. I don't believe in birth control and didn't before I was Catholic. I stopped using Depo in '97 after come serious complications. I made the decision then to not put anything else in my body to prevent me for becoming pregnant. My husband agreed with me with some reservations but now we are fine with it.
As for attention I typically breastfeed till 1 and a half which requires time but I have learned to do everything else one handed and use a sling for newbies. We play, learn, garden and wrestle together. Hubby is a programmer so we have the tech stuff in the house for learning. We are about to get several kindle tablets, that will be linked to his droid apps, for teaching the kids. There are so many programs now for tracing letters, math and ever foreign languages it is not even funny.
Why do I have so many. Because each and everyone of them are precious to me. I know it isn't the standard line of thought around here but children are precious. Yes they cost money but they are what makes the world keep going. Seeing each of them learn and grow, watching their personalities develop is amazing. I wouldn't trade them for anything else in this world.
I don't know what else to say. I get that society doesn't value my children but I do. Even when they get cranky they're beautiful.
JosephineMO7 at December 2, 2011 6:56 AM
T.O. Kit,
Exactly. Take care of your own kids. My kids aren't even in public schools because I consider that my job. My kids have to be respectful and responsible. Anything less is unacceptable.
I would add that planning for the other parent to care for the children if anything happens to you is vital. Hence the massive amounts of insurance we carry. If something happens to him I have a chunk of money and 5 years to get busy. I also have an aunt who would be willing to move down here to help me and a sister who would be helpful too. It isn't like if he goes I will be destitute. We thought ahead for that kind of thing.
JosephineMO7 at December 2, 2011 7:02 AM
I worry that I'm bordering on sociopathy when I realize that I could really care less what happens to this woman's children (or certainly to her). My capacity for worrying about people I don't know, will never meet and am nevertheless supporting to my own (and my family's detriment) is extremly finite. Let them starve.
JDThompson at December 2, 2011 7:03 AM
I'd be pissed if mandatory sterilization went through when it's hard for a woman in her prime childbearing years to get her tubes tied.
I think any number of kids can turn out well. I really like the main kids on Sister Wives--even with three moms there are too many of them to have recieved specialized attention all the time, so they're all independent. Compare those to the kids of the new wife. They've been coddled and are whiny and annoying according to the other children.
This woman though, having kids in order to stay on welfare is her job. Yes, it very much happens--my boyfriend grew up on welfare, and his baby sister (15 years younger) was had partially so mom can stay on the dole and partially because the boys were grown up and mom wanted someone to take care of. Baby sis is now over 18 and mom has managed to stay on welfare somehow. She's kind of a genius in her own crazy way--very resourceful and creative in her scamminess.
deathbysnoosnoo at December 2, 2011 7:12 AM
It may be too late for this one; but if she were paid a lump sum for each free abortion, it would still be much cheaper than paying child welfare costs until the kid is old enough to go to prison(which is where most of her's will go). It would be even better if she were given a tubal ligation after the third abortion( for pay of course)
BarSinister at December 2, 2011 7:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/02/dont_have_a_lit.html#comment-2823374">comment from deathbysnoosnooI'd be pissed if mandatory sterilization went through when it's hard for a woman in her prime childbearing years to get her tubes tied.
I know. I'm also irritated that I'm charged in my health care as if I'll become pregnant and have a baby. That's not happening. Because I have serious birth control -- and because I can take children around me for a few hours, tops, if they're parentally supervised and someone's making me dinner.
Amy Alkon at December 2, 2011 7:33 AM
Oh yeah Bar, let's pay her to make and kill babies. Brilliant. Did you miss the line about getting more of what you subsidize?
I heart josephineM07! We need more great moms having more kids and less crappy moms having 1 or 2. It's more environmentally friendly too. One stroller vs 8, multiple uses on cribs and clothes and toys, and I'm betting they don't waste a lot of food.
Back to the primary post-this woman makes me physically ill. I see the slippery slope argument of forced birth control, but I see no reason we shouldn't require monthly depo (or an IUD insert) for your monthly welfare. Along with a drug test. If you can afford drugs, you don't need my money.
momof4 at December 2, 2011 7:42 AM
I don't see the issue with large families, as long as they take of themselves. My in-laws have 5 kids. My mother was one of six children, and they all turned out fine. Dad was one of four. Families with lots of kids have their own dynamic, and when the parents are responsible I think the kids turn out pretty well adjusted.
Now, I wouldn't have that many kids. The only way I'll even have three is if I have twins next time.
I don't believe in mandatory sterilizations in general... but a court-orded steriliztion for the subject of the video seems like a favor to society.
ahw at December 2, 2011 7:55 AM
...but I see no reason we shouldn't require monthly depo (or an IUD insert) for your monthly welfare. Along with a drug test. If you can afford drugs, you don't need my money.
Amen, mom. Or take it a step further. If you get pregnant or fail a drug test while on government assistance, you lose it, period, for good.
JDThompson at December 2, 2011 8:07 AM
It is stories like this that harden one's heart. In these tough economic times, there are so many good people that are down on their luck, and resources that could be helping many families are all being hogged by one.
Forced sterilization would be ok by me. If you have more than three kids you can't take care of, you sure as heck shouldn't be having more. And forced sterilization for men who father children they don't care for. It's not like a vasectomy will alter your life, but it does reduce the burden to society.
Eric at December 2, 2011 8:12 AM
I like momof4's idea about forced birth control or sterilization for welfare recipients. For society in general, I'm absolutely against it. I stopped taking birth control for a reason, and I don't want that hormone altering shit in my body. I still managed not to get pregnant until I was ready to, so it's not as if it can't be done.
I also have nothing against large families, as long as parents are doing it because they love children and are raising them to be good people, and are supporting themselves financially.
Angie at December 2, 2011 8:15 AM
No, we can't force people to have things injected into their bodies or have things forcibly inserted into their bodies. Uncool.
I won't do Depo because just the pill--the low dose one--makes me gain huge amounts of weight which I don't take off easily. Depo is even worse.
The IUD isn't any better. You are getting hormones, copper or both. And since I've given up on wearing earrings because anything with a hint of copper will give me horrible ear infections, what do you suppose will happen to my cervix and uterus if I implant copper in there?
I.want.tubal.ligation. It's an outpatient procedure now, less painful than an IUD. But I can't have one because other women have changed their minds about having babies.
deathbysnoosnoo at December 2, 2011 8:26 AM
Don't miss a libertarian's defense of fiction's Ebenezer Scrooge.
http://www.cynical-c.com/2011/12/01/a-libertarian-defense-of-scrooge/
Andre Friedmann at December 2, 2011 9:01 AM
A friend of mine has a mother who worked as a nurse and she told him that back in the 60's, the doctors and nurses quietly tied the tubes of welfare mothers giving birth. They'd get a sure jail term if they tried that today.
That said, the problem is clearly that in a society that cares about children being raised properly that they wind up becoming hostages unless two measures put into place: One is mandatory sterilization and abortion but we all know the objections to that but another is quietly ignored: In the past, women were expected to marry and have a man support them. No man to support them, no kids.
With women working and the feedback loop that women needed to work as fewer men directly supported them, the number of single, and ultimately single mothers, exploded exponentially. The "child support" enforcement schemes of the 80's, 90's, and present are an attempt to gain society the benefits of men as breadwinners again but this assumes that the women won't just get an unnamed man to impregnate them if benefits are guaranteed...
PK at December 2, 2011 9:17 AM
I've been trying for several years now to get permanently sterilized (Essure would be my first choice). I've gotten told that I can't until I have children; it's too hard to do it if I don't already have a kid; they won't do it to someone under thirty; or the doctor's office just hangs up on me. I still have the shell out for maternal care every month...even though I'm on BC. It sucks.
It's really, really very hard to get permanently sterilized if you are a woman, haven't had kids, and are fairly young. But I'll keep on trying.
I don't agree with mandatory sterilization either (and for those of you who do, do some research on how it's been used in the past).
BUT! For those of you who are interested, Planned Parenthood has a donation center on their website, where you can donate once, or set up a monthly gift (starting at just $15 a month!). You can also donate, as Amy mentioned, to Project Prevention, or the National Abortion Federation, which provides emergency funds to low-income women who need abortions but can't afford to get one.
Seriously - if you think there should be less of this in the world, put your money where your mouth is and donate to PP or NAF. Of course, I doubt this woman would have used their services, but there are a lot of women out there who, just because they may be poor, aren't as irresponsible.
Choika at December 2, 2011 9:42 AM
Poor old Scrooge! All he wants, he says, is to be left alone. Like that makes him a criminal.
Angel Adams was once a kid just like the fifteen she currently has. Even if two-thirds of her kids (ten) grow up and don't end up on welfare, and the other third (five) grow up to get on welfare but each only have one-third the number of kids she has (five each), that's still 25 more kids on welfare.
Hence my despair. It takes an awful lot of hard-working, responsible people to carry the burdens imposed by just one Angel Adams.
When our social systems break under all this weight, the suffering will be something we in the USA aren't used to seeing.
Pirate Jo at December 2, 2011 10:12 AM
P.S., Choika, I never had kids either but found a doctor in West Des Moines, Iowa to perform the Essure procedure on me when I was 34. The tiny little coil that resides in each of my tubes are titanium alloy, not copper.
Pirate Jo at December 2, 2011 10:14 AM
"No, we can't force people to have things injected into their bodies or have things forcibly inserted into their bodies. Uncool."
No one is (seriously, at least) advocating tying them down and doing it. But I see no problem with the "if you want X from society, you have to do Y" program.
I donate to project prevention. I love them. I will never give a penny to kill a woman's child, but to prevent it? Heck yeah! Shutting the barn door after the horse is already out has never worked. Gotta stop that horse before it starts.
momof4 at December 2, 2011 10:52 AM
"Somebody need to pay for alllllll my kids." @ 2:27
Yes, that somebody is typically called "parent."
Now I need to get back to work, to pay for alllllll your children's existence, and after that, I must keep working to pay for the existence of me and those I support. (Notice the order of that, folks, my work is used to support her kids first, then I get what is left over? Oh, I notice. I sure do...
Spartee at December 2, 2011 11:10 AM
Amy regarding Josephine and her large family. My wife is the youngest of 10. She grew up in a working class poor household. Her family is far less dysfunctional than the family I come from. All her brothers and sisters are hard working responsible individuals. They all get along, and are very supportive of each other. All my many nieces and nephews have all turned out pretty well. Certainly no drug users, felons or gang bangers. So, it is possible for a husband and wife to successfully raise a large number of children.
Bill O Rights at December 2, 2011 11:12 AM
Choika wrote ...put your money where your mouth is and donate to PP or NAF.
*Applause*
Yep! I used to be a PP volunteer -- and PP and the NAF get my money regularly. Not all women who should use their services do -- but they have been there for me and for my friends and others I love. I hate to imagine a world without these organizations, and I do my best to make sure I'll never have to experience one.
And as for big families, my dad was one of 8. His family was poor, but they were all taken care of. And they are all successful today. Deathbysnoosnoo referred to the independence of kids from large families, and that's always been something I've admired in my dad, aunts and uncles.
sofar at December 2, 2011 11:32 AM
She should've listened to Bob Barker.
lsomber at December 2, 2011 11:44 AM
At least one of her kids will be a bullet stop.
I'm betting 3 or 4
And I don't believe in mandatory sterilization.
I do, although a global pandemic killing off atleast half of humanity would be far better for our species in the long run
Oh yeah Bar, let's pay her to make and kill babies. Brilliant. Did you miss the line about getting more of what you subsidize?
Thats one thing I wouldnt mind paying more for
When our social systems break under all this weight, the suffering will be something we in the USA aren't used to seeing.
But we do see it, on late night infomercials. Ever wonder why it is you can feed immunize and educate a child have a world away for 'pennies' a day, but in america it costs a couple grand a month?
lujlp at December 2, 2011 1:04 PM
If an IUD or a birth control shot is mandatory to receive a welfare check then it's not actually forced. Don't want it? Great, don't get the money then.
Lynn at December 2, 2011 1:29 PM
"Thats one thing I wouldnt mind paying more for"
How long do you think it would take before these human sows decide paying for condoms is stupid because you'll shell out hundreds for their abortion whenever they want? You might be cool with your entire paycheck going to kill their unwanteds, but I like my money staying with me, personally.
"Ever wonder why it is you can feed immunize and educate a child have a world away for 'pennies' a day, but in america it costs a couple grand a month?"
Hmm, because Drs here don't donate their services for free? And frequently the vacs are donated as well. Nor do any of the other people associated with these activities work for free, whereas the people working with the charities frequently do. And, not many people here live on gruel and plumpynut.
momof4 at December 2, 2011 1:51 PM
I sympathize with the notions but Forced sterilization is not the answer. Its the start of a slippery slope along the lines of assisted suicide (while under socialized medicine) and death penalty laws (while under a corrupt government) both of which I support with specific rules in place.
After awhile the government is picking winners and losers in the reproductive game for any number of sundry reasons beyond just getting a welfare check. You just have to look into our own American past to see that. How do you define someone as unfit? Race, religion, they took a welfare check in a bad economy for a few months?
I mean the welfare laws have created a system where a woman like this has gotten a lot of help to no avail while a woman who gives birth has her newborn taken away due to a bad drug test in the hospital. All because the mommy ate a poppy seed muffin (aka shows up like heroin usage). Another recent case was where a new baby lost 1lb in weight and the gov took the kid and gave it up for adoption.
The answer here is you CUT OFF WELFARE CHECKS. This is not in the purview of the government, at least not the federal government. If we want to pay for those kids as a society because we hate to see them suffer, we pay for it, taking away from someone/something else in the budget.
As others have stated, cases like this woman just harden my heart and resolve to end welfare entitlements across all government levels. Charity belongs with private groups, not gathered at the force of a gun thru taxes.
Sio at December 2, 2011 2:17 PM
*****As others have stated, cases like this woman just harden my heart and resolve to end welfare entitlements across all government levels. Charity belongs with private groups, not gathered at the force of a gun thru taxes.*****
WORD.
Daghain at December 2, 2011 6:18 PM
On my mother's side -- my great-grandmother had 9 children -- she was a Ukrainian RC off the boat along with her husband. My great-grandfather died before I was born between the coal mines and the chemicals he used on the farm. Most of the great uncles and aunts turned out fine.
However my grandfather was a straight up lying, cheating, alcoholic, bastard. I met him once. My grandmother, whom I met twice, popped out 23 children, some of them with questionable paternity. She was pretty much an alcoholic, uncaring, whore. (Both pretty much confirmed by my aunts and uncles in sideways conversations.) My youngest uncle, whom I never met, committed suicide at 16. I was 13 at the time.
I won't condemn anyone with a large family. But there is a difference between a Mom & Dad versus a mother and a father, as the female and males in this case amply demonstrate. I don't have any problem with someone like Josephine, who is responsible. I have a problem with someone like Angel. Why does she deserve a dime of my money, forced out of my pocket at the point of the IRS's or state's government gun?
Welfare is as addictive crack. And when you have no example to show you how to be a responsible, self-sufficient, working adult you get people like this. Someone who doesn't realize that I'm working something like 27%-33% to pay for her irresponsibility.
Jim P. at December 2, 2011 8:24 PM
The problem, lujlp, is that the global pandemic won't discriminate; it'll kill off good and bad alike. We'll still have half as many welfare queens in the end.
mpetrie98 at December 2, 2011 11:11 PM
The problem, lujlp, is that the global pandemic won't discriminate; it'll kill off good and bad alike. We'll still have half as many welfare queens in the end. -- mpetrie98 at December 2, 2011 11:11 PM
I'm personally voting for Capt. Trips. ;-)
Jim P. at December 2, 2011 11:29 PM
Not a lot of true victims Tyler? I'd say there are 15 of 'em.
... On another note, I think the adoption process should be simplified. I understand it's crazy complicated and expensive.
NicoleK at December 3, 2011 1:08 AM
"Someone who doesn't realize that I'm working something like 27%-33% to pay for her irresponsibility."
She wouldn't care if she did realize. She'd demand more.
momof4 at December 3, 2011 5:27 AM
Oh, I know that very well. Same with the OWS people. The people sucking at the teat of the government think they are entitled. That attitude needs to broken.
Jim P. at December 3, 2011 7:22 AM
Hormones and copper IUDs make many women sick. The choice should not be "make yourself sick or no more money for you." I don't care what you've done in life, what kind of leech you are on other people. We can't ask people to make themselves sick in exchange for help. The BC methods currently on the market are far more dangerous than advertised.
Tubal ligation should be one of the choices if we are talking about sterilization for welfare mothers.
And if welfare mothers can get free tubal ligations then so should the rest of us. That's all I'm saying here.
deathbysnoosnoo at December 3, 2011 8:25 AM
No, we can't force people to have things injected into their bodies or have things forcibly inserted into their bodies. Uncool.
Yeah, I mean, we'd never require something like vaccinations before attending school or something. That'd just be wrong. /sarc
No, I'm not against such things just pointing out that we already do this and no one (other then the anti-vac wackos) are against it.
I'm personally voting for Capt. Trips. ;-)
I sure hope that if I make it it, I'm drawn to Boulder afterwards.
Miguelitosd at December 3, 2011 8:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/12/02/dont_have_a_lit.html#comment-2825419">comment from MiguelitosdYou don't have to have vaccinations -- if you never are around other people, including going to school. Look up "herd immunity." The question is, whether you're endangering others through your behavior.
Hey, whaddya all say we bring back polio? I miss seeing all those hobbling people.
Amy Alkon at December 3, 2011 9:05 AM
The crack-addicted mothers make the best argument for forced sterilization I've ever seen.
I like Momof4's idea best. You want welfare, you go on birth control. Don't want the birth control? They you don't want welfare.
Patrick at December 3, 2011 12:04 PM
The problem, lujlp, is that the global pandemic won't discriminate; it'll kill off good and bad alike. We'll still have half as many welfare queens in the end. -mpetrie98
Yeah, I know, but in the resulting choas, an dlack of half of those willing tax payers, any overnments which manage to survive will eith cut wastful programs as they will bearly be able to hand out food off of trucks
And the lazy fucks will either die of starvation of finally get a job
lujlp at December 3, 2011 12:16 PM
Forget about giving her a subsidy (I'm sure if she wants her tubes tied, Planned Parenthood would be willing to do it for free anyhow): just stop giving her, and other "independent" single moms, the dole to live on while they raise their litters, whether it's at the expense of taxpayers in general or of some unlucky guy who believed her when she lied that she was on the Pill.
This is not really a political question at all, but an economic one; that is, it's all about the incentives each set of rules creates. The left got the welfare state enacted with endless sob stories about starving children; but in reality, when you give poor people a huge financial incentive to have more kids they can't support, then guess what? There are a lot more starving kids! I say cut off the funds for kids conceived after the law is signed -- and nearly all the young women who would have had them will think again.
John David Galt at December 3, 2011 9:03 PM
Maybe we need to re-institute orphanages. At least then the kids would get three meals a day and an education.
Just sayin'.
Daghain at December 3, 2011 10:38 PM
There are still orphanages. They-like most hospitals and food pantries and other services to the poor or otherwise needy-are run by churches. We have one in RR, they get all our outgrown toys and clothes for ages 2 and up. (the thigns for under-2 go the crisis pregnancy center).
momof4 at December 4, 2011 5:34 AM
Leave a comment