Posted on 05/01/2005 7:21:19 AM PDT by madprof98
I'd like to have one that said "A womans right to choose WHAT?"
"What do you do with a welfare mother who keeps popping out kids? She's not going to stop having sex, you can't sterilize her. It infuriates me."
I think more people born is a good thing. They can grow up to be valuable members of society.. assuming our school system was better. And by the children creating value for the society, it also gives the mother value. In the same way that a stay at home mom is valuable to society.
The only difference between a welfare mother and a stay at home mother, is only one person is subsidizing the woman and children in the stay at home case. Where as every tax payer is subsidizing the welfare mother.
Okay, maybe welfare mother was a mis-write. What I mean is a mother. A woman who brings forth children but doesn't parent them. They do not bring value to society when they are sticking me up on the street.
I do not mean to refer to a woman who is struggling but poor and needs a hand--then will release it when she's able.
That was supposed to be CRACK mother.
It has to be if the law is going to distinguish DCF authority over a minor, from parental authority over a minor.
But my take on the case is that it starts from the premise of the minor's rights. And if that is the starting point, the minor is the same, whether control over her is (otherwise) under DCF or private guardianship.
In the current case, the court already has a compelling interest as the child, as well as the unborn child, is a ward of the state.
Again, my take is that the court views itself as agnostic. It's function is to protect the rights of the minor. It is the DCF who has the burden of showing that it has an interest that overrides the minors rights.
May not be a minor point but DCF's authority is whatever the court gives to it..
I agree. Obviously, the first authority and responsibilities come from statute, but the L.G. "I want an abortion," DCF "No way Jose" case will necessarily result in a court saying which side wins. Right now, the SCOFLA "North Florida" case points to the kid prevailing (in my opinion), but the court might say the DCF involvement strips the kid of her right to an abortion. If it does, the logic will be interesting, to say the least ;-)
I actualy agree with you.. When we provide money to single mothers who need a hand, we invariably create more single mothers. Both of women for whom its now possible to leave their husband and go it alone, with big brother's help. And childless women, who now can have a child knowing the government will pay them more. And in some areas potentially a semi-decent life, assumign the woman isn't very materialistic. Aka a house, cable tv, food, clothing..
Its one of those examples where having good intentions, helping a single mother, actually causes problems. Or advantages depending on your objectives.
And you hit on another point, is when you offer things for free you create dependency.. then often those kids who can't buy the things they want, turn to crime.. or simply are with a bad crowd in general and get into drugs and other problems.
Yes, consequences may be the only thing we can expect to teach this one.
Thanks for the ping, friend.
Mega ping..
Thank you! There are so many complex issues here. I don't want to see ANY abortions, but I don't want to see so many kids without a future, either.
This 13 year old has so many strikes against her already. I think praying for her future while we pray for her baby is a good idea.
To this, there are no easy answers. I wish there were a compassionate way to restigmatize single-motherhood. Not all single mothers, before anyone gets out the flame thrower. Certainly not the children born into these situations.
Richard Wexler of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform said: 'I hope they move very, very quickly because every day is another day of emotional torment for this child and every day the pregnancy continues, it becomes more dangerous.'
------
Life is 'dangerous' now???
... and it seems the 'emotional torment' for this child began well before she got knocked up at 13 ...
Thanks for the ping!
Steering clear of this thread? Good idea . . .
Its a messed up world we live in when as a parent you cannot give your teenage daughter an aspirin to take to school, yet she can obtain an abortion without your knowledge or consent.
This story has it all; an "Activist" judge legislating from the bench, the ACLU crying foul because a fetus might be forced to live and a child demanding to be allowed to play adult because she doesn't know better. A thirteen year old demands the right to discard her child, while I would do everything and give everything to get mine back . . .
Advanced Calculus seems easy by comparison.
Amen! I was working with Habitat on day in North Philadelphia (cleaning grafitti--grrrr) and all the neighborhood kids were running around with us. One little boy reminded me of mine so I said I had a boy his age (say 6 at the time) at home. He asked me who was with him, I said his daddy. The boy just looked at me blankly. I sometimes wonder what his life is like today. I hope he makes it.
Well I read through the first fifty posts and found no one expressing
ANY CARE WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF THE CHILD MOTHER!!!
Why am I not surprised? I bet no one in the next fifty did either.
Go ahead. Ruin this little girls life. Kill her maybe. She made her choice! (God you people make me sick)
If THIS is the Love of God may He strike me deaad NOW as life on this planet with YOU is unbearable. Jesus! Please Lord! Tell me there is more than THIS!!!
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.