Posted on 03/02/2009 9:59:03 AM PST by GOPGuide
snip
whatever one thinks of Darwin and genetics, assuming he was even partially right about genes, is there any hope for the children of such a hopelessly odd mother, not to mention a man who provided his seed because he was "in love" with her? The political culture of today says we can't answer this question publicly, but assuming Suleman's story is merely the tip of the iceberg, politicians who control the purse strings are eventually going to have to stake out a position here.
Whatever side is taken, it would surely be interesting to know how many women, desirous of children but unable to become pregnant, would eagerly adopt Suleman's creations. It seems the number of childless women interested in parenting her children would be very low.
snip
Defenders of government social services might reply that the possibility of such abuses is the price of maintaining a civil society. But have they considered how uncivil our society might become if the Sulemans of the world and their spawn multiply? Just as some acts are so dastardly that governments imprison people for them, can't there be standards of taxpayer abuse so audacious that governments will refuse to fund their results?
snip
Applied to Suleman, if governments must pay for horrific decisions like hers, can't they also say who can and cannot have children?
One hopes that we never reach the above scenario. That being said, it has to be remembered that governments only have resources to cushion certain bad decisions to the extent that there exist productive individuals in the private sector that can be taxed.
snip
If not, eventually a government long on supplicants and shorter on resource providers is going to have to make these decisions for us in ways neither side likes.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
My personal opinion is that we should either
1) abolish welfare in proportion to how many kids you have, or
2) we should require women on longterm welfare to have an IUD implanted while they are on welfare.
If they ever go off welfare, the state would pay to have to the IUD removed and she can have kids.
Unfortunate this has gotten to this point but look at California to see what happens when tax consumers outnumber taxpayers.
Leftists will scream, but THEY the lefties created the welfare state. If we are going to pay to support other people's children then the state has made the welfare class' breeding habits the business of the taxpayers because we are on the hook for their bad decisions.
And, how are we suppossed to take of all these poor people AND have a welfare state? Mathematically, this is not sustainable to have the upper and middle classes pay for their own kids and pay to support the underclasses children at the same time via taxes.
Something is going to have to give
—permanent sterilization for any individual recipient of government funds-—
Just for starters, why restrict this to divididual recipients? How about all the guys at AIG, GMAC, American Express, Chrysler, CIT Group, and PNC Financial Services Group?
This writer's an ideologue with an anti-birth agenda, period. Although, to be fair to the either ignorant or disingenuous (or both) person, if Ms. Suleman's children were adopted by some sane people with jobs, they would no longer be "her" children: they would be the adoptive parents' children.
American Express Company
American International Group
Bank of America
Chrysler LLC
CIT Group, Inc.
Citigroup $1,480,000
General Motors Corporation
GMAC LLC
Goldman Sachs & Co. $720,000
Huntington Bancshares, Inc.
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank
Morgan Stanley
PNC Financial Services Group
State Street Corporation
The Bank of New York Mellon
U.S. Bancorp
Wells Fargo & Co.
And there's more--- many more ---
If you’re going to have a dreamworld, have one with no “welfare,” period. Private charity only.
Very true. The last I heard, there were 2 million married couples in the U.S. with homestudies completed and waiting for children, ideally infants — which most of Hapless Clueless Nadya’s offspring are.
-—agree—(seems to me that was the intent of the land-owning white guys who wrote the United States Constitution)—
It’s the right way to go regardless of the sex, race, and real estate holdings of the Founders. Government “charity” makes the needy into slaves or pets, and the better-off into miserly death-eaters.
Wow, two million!
Bingo ! THAT's the solution that cuts the Gordian knot.
Forced sterilization is an unacceptable cure for an unacceptable ill, long term welfare.
Yes. Unfortunately, less than 4% of them will end up being able to adopt a non-related child (meaning a young’un who is not already their stepchild, niece/nephew or grandchild).
Oops, I meant #11 for you.
In my years on Free Republic, I’ve come to the conclusion that the only solution to problems created by government is to eliminate the programs that produced the problems. Attempting to mitigate the consequences doesn’t work; “reform” on the fringes doesn’t work. The basic premise is flawed, and accepting it corrupts every calculation down the line.
That’s a very sad number.
And illegals?
Muslims will have a real problem with that... but i’m sure it doesn’t apply to them. /s
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.