|
|
Post by duckman on Feb 12, 2009 6:57:14 GMT -8
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_re_us/octuplets" A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.
Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.
Also, the hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, for care of the premature babies, according to the Los Angeles Times. The cost has not been disclosed.
Word of the public assistance has stoked the furor over Suleman's decision to have so many children by having embryos implanted in her womb.
"It appears that, in the case of the Suleman family, raising 14 children takes not simply a village but the combined resources of the county, state and federal governments," Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote in Wednesday's paper. He called Suleman's story "grotesque." Once again, irresponsible people making bad decisions cost ME money !!!
|
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Feb 12, 2009 7:32:36 GMT -8
No kidding. The lack of accountability is one of the main problems I have with entitlement spending. If this woman had to face the people paying her bills, they would have told her not to become pregnant. She, of all people, had a choice about whether to have children. Raising one child at a time is hard enough, but she's got 14 children, 8 of whom are newborns. It's just crazy.
I am probably the most pro-life person on this board. I value the lives of the children born to this home. But I don't see a good outcome with a mom who has no visible means of support, and no father. A lot of people are single parents through no fault of their own, but this woman had a choice about whether to reproduce, and she made the wrong choice.
This is where the "women should have reproductive freedom" argument gets you. If you go to an extreme on one end--to terminate a life, then you have to go to an extreme on the other end to cause conception and pregnancy for any woman who wants it.
So, just to save a lot of words, from now on when we discuss free, unrestricted access to abortion, I'm just going to remind you that you are paying for 14 children because a woman wanted reproductive freedom.
Sheesh, if she didn't want to be on the public dime, she could have waited a couple of years to complete her education and get a job. The bioclock was a nonissue.
|
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Feb 12, 2009 8:19:46 GMT -8
It couldn't happen to a nicer, lib-infested Nanny State!!
Makes 'em live up to the example they set on a continuous basis!
|
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Feb 12, 2009 9:49:53 GMT -8
This is why I try to stick to a constitutional point of view. Our founding fathers were smarter than we think. I think they saw this coming. They set up very clear distinctions between the FedState, the 50 States, and the individual. They understood that if "rights" were granted by the fed, those rights would lead to other rights, and so on. They thought out the issues to their logical conclusions. They may not have seen this specific train wreck happening, but they saw the principles involved.
Somehow the 4th and 14th amendments became a "right to privacy."
The "right to privacy" led to a right to abortion.
The right to abortion somehow led to the catchphrase "reproductive freedom."
The right to "reproductive freedom" became a right to have children without repercussion, which then became the right to be supported in the birthing and rearing of those children. This would include the right to expensive medical procedures to bring about a pregnancy. Or terminate one. Take your pick.
Hence, you have a nanny-state where an unmarried woman can get pregnant via artificial means, give birth to 14 children, and be supported by the US taxpayers.
The next thing will be to force abortion on "undesirables," and pregnancy on "desirables". Fertility is no longer an issue. Virginity is no longer an issue. Now that we have separated sex from reproduction and both from personal responsibility, it's not much of a leap to think our government will begin to select which people should be allowed to have children and which should not.
And let me just throw in one more piece of the puzzle. Men are not going to have anything to say about it because they have practically become irrelevant except for their seed. A child might not have the right to know who his father is, because that's a privacy issue. A man may not have the right to know if he has fathered children, or who they might be.
Bring this back to a consitutional issue and suddenly everyone has the rights they ought to have.
The simple solution would be for the government to stay out of it. The individual bears full responsibility for his/her own actions.
And one more question needs to be asked: If the woman is unmarried, in school, unemployed, and has six children already, where did she find the fincancial means to undergo IVF? This was the second IVF pregnancy for her. That's not cheap, and neither is the storage of all those little embryos in the interim. Who paid? Has she actually been attending class? Where did that money come from? I would like to know where the money trail leads.
Sounds like the only ones held accountable in all this will be you and me. That's right: US taxpayers.
|
|
|
|
Post by floyd on Feb 12, 2009 13:55:43 GMT -8
She has a website begging for money!
|
|
|
|
Post by jvega on Feb 12, 2009 20:20:55 GMT -8
A news report I saw said that she might be classified as permanently disabled. If that happens, she will receive a monthly check for that, but also a separate check for each one of her kids, a total of 15 checks. That's every month, until the kids turn 18 (time extensions are possible if the kid is still enrolled in school when they turn 18).
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxf1ex on Feb 13, 2009 2:49:38 GMT -8
I am all for freedom, until it infringes on my freedom. And in this case if 1 penny of taxpayer money goes into support for her choice on having kids, then as much as I do not wish it to happen, if she can not support them. If her family does not wish to help her. Then she needs to find them a good home.
|
|
|
|
Post by seeingeyelobster on Feb 13, 2009 8:10:11 GMT -8
Now would be a great time for all prolifers to put their money where their mouth is. It would be great publicity for the prolife movement. After all, she chose life for her children. Shouldn't prolifers be supporting a fund so this woman can support her children with dignity, and not at the support of the taxpayers?
|
|
|
|
Post by duckman on Feb 13, 2009 8:15:51 GMT -8
Now would be a great time for all prolifers to put their money where their mouth is. It would be great publicity for the prolife movement. After all, she chose life for her children. Shouldn't prolifers be supporting a fund so this woman can support her children with dignity, and not at the support of the taxpayers? That has so many levels of stupidity that it is amazing !!! |
|
|
|
Post by amyinpa on Feb 13, 2009 8:32:05 GMT -8
Makes me wonder how many women's abortions seeingeyelobster has paid for.
DUH!
|
|
|
|
Post by hatboromike on Feb 13, 2009 11:46:05 GMT -8
Now would be a great time for all prolifers to put their money where their mouth is. It would be great publicity for the prolife movement. After all, she chose life for her children. Shouldn't prolifers be supporting a fund so this woman can support her children with dignity, and not at the support of the taxpayers?  yeah ... right ... PITD |
|
|
|
Post by joseph0501 on Feb 13, 2009 12:08:01 GMT -8
It couldn't happen to a nicer, lib-infested Nanny State!! Makes 'em live up to the example they set on a continuous basis! Took the words right out of my mouth. Thank God I don't live in the land of San Fran (fruits) and Berkeley (nuts). |
|
|
|
Post by msguide on Feb 13, 2009 14:11:37 GMT -8
Hey, Amy, did your back miraculously heal itself when you were pregnant? Mine didn't, and I only had one child. If we'd have thought of having eight in a litter, maybe we could be getting nice checks from the government and we could stay home all the time or maybe go for a Masters degree. Sounds like fun to me.
I know this sounds really mean, but common sense says pregnancy is hard on a woman's body, and the gal should have figured out she would only get worse by having a risky pregnancy.
|
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Feb 15, 2009 18:26:10 GMT -8
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_re_us/octuplets" A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.
Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.
Also, the hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, for care of the premature babies, according to the Los Angeles Times. The cost has not been disclosed.
Word of the public assistance has stoked the furor over Suleman's decision to have so many children by having embryos implanted in her womb.
"It appears that, in the case of the Suleman family, raising 14 children takes not simply a village but the combined resources of the county, state and federal governments," Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote in Wednesday's paper. He called Suleman's story "grotesque." Once again, irresponsible people making bad decisions cost ME money !!! She is semi-hot though, I saw her in a TV interview. But 14 kids and no intercourse with the sperm donor? Maybe closet lesbian, and the idiot who donated all that spermage should have some (financial) accountability. Joe Joe |
|
joeyd
Republican
Not a Republican
10 percenter
Posts: 2,444
|
Post by joeyd on Feb 15, 2009 18:27:41 GMT -8
She has a website begging for money! How much did you send her, Floyd?  Joe |
|
yeah ... right ...
