Posted on 03/16/2006 5:36:30 AM PST by FerdieMurphy
She must have missed the part, "God helps those who help themselves."
Did we all get up on the grumpy side of the bed this morning?
No, but we weren't born last night either. This woman is not a fit parent and her children should be put in a fit home with adult supervision.
Most of us have been in one of these situations. If it's merely bad luck that got her into all of them at once, she's dangerous to be around.
This is about the dumbest statement I have seen yet.
So any mother ,that is forced to raise her children alone,because of reasons like the death of the father or the father leaving his wife(common law or by marriage) and children ,is now labeled as a child abuser.
You are out of your mind.
I didn't read any where in this article that she was living on welfare or that she received assistance from the government.The help she is receiving now is from a CHARITY and this same CHARITY would help you as well ,in the event of a disaster.
If you have to ask, I'm not telling.
How do you know that the youngest children were not fathered by her common law husband? she could have had the two eldest by another relationship. I don't see that being in a relationship with one person for at least 8 years to be promiscuous.
She could have gotten married with 12 bridesmaids, in church, lavish reception, and still ended up like this. If that were so, would you still call her irresponsible?
I'm sure while the father was living in the home, things worked. Like everyone is fond of mentioning beans and cornbread, you can make it work. It sounded like she was making it work...until her vehicle broke down. Then the house caught fire. Sh*t happens, and I don't think she needs to be judged so harshly.
That pretty much covers it.
If a young girl has a child out of wedlock that should be considered a mistake, albeit a stupid one. When the second one is born both should be taken from her and she should be sent to a reformatory because she is a threat to society!
This simpleton is nothing but a breed sow.
The government should keep their noses out of everybody's wallets and personal lives.
The Federal Government pays state Social Service agencies for not only every child they place in foster care, but also for every child that is placed in adoption.
I don't even want to ask why....
This sounds like the story of Kerren's life.
I stood behind a woman in Walmart the other day. A truckload of kids, a shopping cart full of junk food, and a big hassle with the food stamp card. The kids were out of control and damaging everything around them. Sounds similar.
Intentionally raising a child without a father is child abuse. Unintentionally doing so is a different case--it's on par with unintentionally letting them die of starvation or disease, presumably because one is ignorant of the seriousness of the child's condition, or is too stupid to call a doctor.
So any mother ,that is forced to raise her children alone,because of reasons like the death of the father...
You're changing the subject: we're talking about Laitaille, not a war-widow. She didn't lose her husband; she never had a husband. She cheerfully made babies with a man without making him say "I do" first. That means exactly one of two things: she's stupid enough to believe that he'll stay forever, because he whispered a few sweet nothings; or she doesn't think it matters whether he stays forever. The latter case is either stupidity or child abuse, where my money would be on stupidity.
Madonna and Murphy Brown, by contrast, are child abusers.
Yup, it's a great racket. Adopt a minority or disabled kid, get payments for the next 18 years. I've known folks who ran regular baby mills out of their homes, as their sole source of income.
I don't think it was a deliberate decision to raise ten kids by herself. The article states that the father of 8 of them, moved to the east coast. What is she supposed to do?
You and Mrs. Shalom have a stable marriage, and adoption is a good thing. Good luck : )
She isn't the one who skipped out on her responsibilities,it was the father of the 8 kids that did.
the father leaving his wife(common law or by marriage)
You forgot this part of my comment.
Just because the father left after 8 years or 8 children doesn't make her someone that is abusing her children.
It was a long term relationship and the father of 8 of the children left her ,to raise them on her own and she has done the best she can under the circumstances.
Exactly, that's why I called her "stupid": she wanted the man to help her raise her eight kids, but took no steps to help make sure it happened. It was extremely forseeable that a man who knocks up an unmarried girl is likely to move on eventually, even if he does move in with you at one point.
What is she supposed to do?
I know what! She should find another man, and have two more kids out of wedlock! Sheer brilliance! Yup, I'll be happy to swap Paypal addresses so we can bet whether she's stupid or not. In fact, I guess it's enough if I give you mine, since you'll be the one paying up. :-)
You and Mrs. Shalom have a stable marriage, and adoption is a good thing. Good luck : )
Thanks!
Thank you. I don't think people read past the topic headline before they started the usual invectives : (
Don't people here know that there is a whole other world out there, where people don't have 401k's, health insurance, and college educations? You have to have faith. Sometimes you prosper, sometimes you get burned...
You forgot this part of my comment.
No I didn't: I smashed it to pieces by daring you to bet me whether the first child was born before or after they started shacking up together. You simply can't equate this with a marriage; Laitaille went and got herself knocked up out of wedlock, and then like a stupid cow she proceeded to repeat the trick seven more times.
Any girl who assumes the guy is in it for life, and doesn't find it suspicious that he doesn't tie the knot, is stupid. And any girl who starts pumping out babies before putting him through at least the simplest loyalty test--a ring and ceremony--is also stupid. Unless she didn't want a permanent relationship in the first place, in which case she's of questionable moral character.
Just because the father left after 8 years or 8 children doesn't make her someone that is abusing her children.
I already stipulated that she might not be an abuser--she might just be stupid. Did you miss the mention of Madonna and Murphy Brown, by way of contrast?
It was a long term relationship and the father of 8 of the children left her...
There was nothing "long term" about it when she started banging him. She was nineteen, and gave it up without so much as making him say "I do" first.
I hope girls are insulted when they hear the proverb, "Who needs the cow when the milk is free?" I hope they're VERY insulted. And if the shoe fits, I hope they take a good hard look into the mirror, and say "MOOOO!"
Oh great, now the woman is a child abuser.
Look, just because we were raised to a particular standard, doesn't mean that she is stupid, or slutty. She mentioned that they were engaged, for what reason I don't know. Maybe she's embarassed for being abandoned after all that time. Technically she is married to him byway of common law. She probably doesn't know this, as she didn't know that the debit card was activated upon receipt : (
Why are we analyzing this woman? Why the personal attacks on a complete stranger?
What is she supposed to say? He gave her a ring and it wasn't finalized, although he stuck around long enough to father 8 kids. Why does everyone assume the last two aren't his? The first two could have been from a different father. JMJ, someone from this thread should demand DNA samples to clear this up!
Is your problem with the fact that they didn't get a state marriage license? Heck if you think about it, their relationship lasted longer than a lot of couples.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.