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.
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.