An American solution to a problem

[Craig234]

The woman who chose to have children she can not afford to care for - had six, tried for a seventh and got the fourteenth - has caused massive outrage.

It pits society's interests - however little those on the right give them weight - in the care for innocent children for both selfish (better for society for them to become productive rather than criminals) and humanitarian reasons - versus the resentment that our money goes to pay for something caused by a foolish, selfish decision.

The resentment has been huge; the death threats have not only been many for her, but her publicist resign after receiving many, saying that he has necer seen any situation with this level of outrage, he saw less public outrage over the three mile island accident when he was involved in the PR for that incident.

That's where it stood - many Americans furious and not wanting to pay for the care of the children, but with them needing care.

And now, an option for an American solution to the dilemma has come up - news reports say she has been offered a million dollars to star in a porn video.

There's nothing illegal about it; it's a 'private sector' solution, based on the willingness of many in society to pay for her to let them watch her have sex, as a 'freak act'.

The word depraved is knocking, demanding to be let into the post.

So, let's sum this up:

Woman who wants children too much has 14 and needs money to pay for them; society complains.

Same mother, same desire, same 14 children, same need, but she has sex in a porn video (for her children to learn of later), and gets the aid money that way - no problem.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[StageLeft]

She is ridiculous, but so are people who'd internalize it so much to make death threats.

 

[sandorski]

:laugh:

wow

 

[fleshconsumed]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing?

 

[wkabel23]

1. said lady is a looney
2. "oops, I made a mistake...now show me the $$$!"
3. the kids do not deserve to suffer for their mother's mental shortcomings.
4. nor does any kid.
5. but kids do suffer, and life isn't fair.
6. you offering a suggestion?

 

[ProfJohn]

I want my two minutes back.

 

[ProfJohn]

Woman who is on welfare, no job, and no husband decides to have more kids knowing that the state will help take care of them.

What is wrong with this picture?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

OP - what does this have to do with "those on the right"? This doesn't seem to be a left vs right issue.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I want my two minutes back.

I'll happily pay for them at the full value, but the smallest demoniation available is the penny, and I don't want to get ripped off.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
OP - what does this have to do with "those on the right"? This doesn't seem to be a left vs right issue.

The part of the issue I assigned to the right is that the argument that 'children should receive taxpayer assistance when the alternative is inadequate care, even if the situation is caused by the wrongs of the parents', has a lot less sympathy from the right than from the left. The right isn't entirely in opposition to it, but most I talk with on the right have a view of the argument best summarized by 'bullshit!'. The other parts of the issue - recognizing her decision as a mistake, for example - are not right or left issues.

By the way, the responses so far are missing the issue raised - the way that the mother and her children alone don't deserve aid in the view of many, but let her degrade herself by exposing her body and cheapening the sexual act, and now she has every right to the dollars paid for that. We're implicitly saying that the degredation of sex acts made public has more respectability than the accepting of public assistance for the needs of children.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: Craig234
What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing?

Really,

All I see is one absurd situation compouned with another.

What's your point Craig234?

Are we supposed to donate millions to people to keep them out of porn movies?

If you find porn so offensive, being a Dem shouldn't you just call for taxing it more?

(Of course, some may draw the conclusion that we should ponder the consequences of our actions before commiting them because we may have to take the responsibility for them. Or, we could philosiphize about how government dependancy programs motivate people to irresponsible behavior thus resulting in a net 'bad' for society. These kids will likely have life-long physical problems as a result of this situation induced by gov welfare programs.)

Fern

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: Craig234
What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing?

Really,

All I see is one absurd situation compouned with another.

What's your point Craig234?

Are we supposed to donate millions to people to keep them out of porn movies?

If you find porn so offensive, being a Dem shouldn't you just call for taxing it more?

(Of course, some may draw the conclusion that we should ponder the consequences of our actions before commiting them because we may have to take the responsibility for them. Or, we could philosiphize about how government dependancy programs motivate people to irresponsible behavior thus resulting in a net 'bad' for society. These kids will likely have life-long physical problems as a result of this situation induced by gov welfare programs.)

Fern

The left is lacking in its only recognizing the need to care for the children, but not having much to deter the bad choices - indeed, running the risk of incenting them by prioritizing the welfare of the children above the disincenting to others to make the same choice to have children they can't afford.

The right, on the other hand, has an immoral 'destroy the village to save it' approach - not only also lacking any appropriate way to increase the better decisions on having children, but then choosing a disastrous policy when they choose not to ensure the children receive needed care, wronging not only the children but creating problems for society later.

But the point of the thread wasn't about the mistake the mother made in having more children, which is treated as a background assumption; it was the point in post above.

 

[wkabel23]

I think what is being valued is personal responsibility. Again, if this mother's only recourse to care for her children is porno...shouldn't she take it? You are giving the mother a free pass and saying that society, particularly the right, does not care about these children. Incorrect. We all care about the children (Trick loves the kids), but we can't all worry all the time about every child. The mother is responsible for her children and if she wants to feed them, as a good mother would, she might have to do porn.

I think you're making some large jumps. You are confusing encouragement to procure money/a job with lack of care or concern about the children. And then, you say the right is generally more guilty of not valuing children's welfare. I think everyone on the right and left value these children's welfare. Some people encourage the lady to support her children, others would have the government do it. If these children come close to dying or extreme suffering, there are measures in place to assure their welfare.

It is a leap to say that by encouraging this lady to support her children that we do not have any concern for the welfare of children.

I will not address your moralizing on porn and sex.

 

[wkabel23]

not only also lacking any appropriate way to increase the better decisions on having children, but then choosing a disastrous policy when they choose not to ensure the children receive needed care, wronging not only the children but creating problems for society later.

excuse me? increase the better decisions on having children?? like...if you're a single mother and you already have 23 kids then you shouldn't have 8 more? that is a lack of common sense/Darwin at work--call it what you want.

Now...what policy/laws would have helped this lady? IQ test before you can get pregnant? The government cannot teach citizens how to live, that is individual responsibility.

 

[Drako]

I'm assuming this post is supposed to be some kind of joke?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: wkabel23
I think what is being valued is personal responsibility. Again, if this mother's only recourse to care for her children is porno...shouldn't she take it? You are giving the mother a free pass and saying that society, particularly the right, does not care about these children. Incorrect. We all care about the children (Trick loves the kids), but we can't all worry all the time about every child. The mother is responsible for her children and if she wants to feed them, as a good mother would, she might have to do porn.

I think you're making some large jumps. You are confusing encouragement to procure money/a job with lack of care or concern about the children. And then, you say the right is generally more guilty of not valuing children's welfare. I think everyone on the right and left value these children's welfare. Some people encourage the lady to support her children, others would have the government do it. If these children come close to dying or extreme suffering, there are measures in place to assure their welfare.

It is a leap to say that by encouraging this lady to support her children that we do not have any concern for the welfare of children.

I will not address your moralizing on porn and sex.

You're missing the point I was making IMO, and I don't see how repeating it will help. So on some of your points:

I specifically said the right is far more opposed to the public helping pay for the childrens' needs regardless of the fault of the parents when the alternative is that their needs go unmet - not that they're simply 'not concerned about the children'. In fact the right is more likely to donate to private charity to help them, for example.

You are all for her doing porn to support her kids. How about she sell a kidney to raise funds? Better yet - she accept a ten million dollar offer that they'll get great care, if she'll be in a snuff movie and get killed. It should just be her choice to see her kids are cred for, right, given how she was irresponsible to have them. Society has no moral say in the issue of her being allowed to make those choices. You certainly 'will not address moralizing', right?

 

[babylon5]

This is not necessary a either-or scenario, private vs public. There are other solutions.

Split her newborn babies up to families desperate to have their own but can't. Each baby will be placed in middle to upper class homes. No public assistance nor hardcore XXX adult action born is needed

And problem solved.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: babylon5
This is not necessary a either-or scenario, private vs public. There are other solutions.

Split her newborn babies up to families desperate to have their own but can't. Each baby will be placed in middle to upper class homes. No public assistance nor hardcore XXX adult action born is needed

And problem solved.

Also get a hysterectomy, stop this bitch from breeding again like a feral dog.

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: wkabel23
I think what is being valued is personal responsibility. Again, if this mother's only recourse to care for her children is porno...shouldn't she take it? You are giving the mother a free pass and saying that society, particularly the right, does not care about these children. Incorrect. We all care about the children (Trick loves the kids), but we can't all worry all the time about every child. The mother is responsible for her children and if she wants to feed them, as a good mother would, she might have to do porn.

I think you're making some large jumps. You are confusing encouragement to procure money/a job with lack of care or concern about the children. And then, you say the right is generally more guilty of not valuing children's welfare. I think everyone on the right and left value these children's welfare. Some people encourage the lady to support her children, others would have the government do it. If these children come close to dying or extreme suffering, there are measures in place to assure their welfare.

It is a leap to say that by encouraging this lady to support her children that we do not have any concern for the welfare of children.

I will not address your moralizing on porn and sex.

You're missing the point I was making IMO, and I don't see how repeating it will help. So on some of your points:

I specifically said the right is far more opposed to the public helping pay for the childrens' needs regardless of the fault of the parents when the alternative is that their needs go unmet - not that they're simply 'not concerned about the children'. In fact the right is more likely to donate to private charity to help them, for example.

You are all for her doing porn to support her kids. How about she sell a kidney to raise funds? Better yet - she accept a ten million dollar offer that they'll get great care, if she'll be in a snuff movie and get killed. It should just be her choice to see her kids are cred for, right, given how she was irresponsible to have them. Society has no moral say in the issue of her being allowed to make those choices. You certainly 'will not address moralizing', right?

Interesting tactic. Taking what I have said and stretching it out to the most absurd circumstances. If you are trying to be argumentative then that is a good exercise. However, if we are going to keep this in the realm of reality we must limit her job choices to legal jobs. Again, I am not going to address the morality behind the legality/illegality of certain jobs. These are the constructs octomom has to operate within.

Now, you have posed that by doing porno to support her family, octomom will do considerable damage to her kids...and harm their welfare. This is an interesting point. By doing nothing and making no money, will she aid her children's welfare?

Yes, having a job is more respectable than receiving a handout. That is the issue at hand; you are infusing morals and "degradation of the sexual act" into this situation.

Is it more respectable to work for a living or receive a handout, even if you have kids?

 

[wkabel23]

What part about doing a porno to support her family will irreparably harm the well being of her children?

 

[frostedflakes]

I know the non-profit Angels in Waiting has offered to provide Suleman's children with the care they will need to make it through this extremely vulnerable time in their lives. Of course she hasn't taken them up on this offer, maybe because the money actually goes toward the children and not her. Other charities may have stepped up as well. Porn hasn't been the only private sector solution offered...

But it's a moot point, it's starting to sound like the state will be taking the children away from her. There's absolutely no way she can care for them.

 

[wkabel23]

And if to want this lady to get a job rather than rely on government assistance to support her family puts me on the right...well, I've been lumped with worse.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: wkabel23
And if to want this lady to get a job rather than rely on government assistance to support her family puts me on the right...well, I've been lumped with worse.

I don't care to hear you complain about your position being distorted (it wasn't) when you distort others' statements this way, equating porn with the same as any other work.

As I've said twice already, the view of her as irresponsible and the preference for her to be able to pay for her childrens' needs with *normal* work is not a left/right issue.

 

[Stunt]

After that many kids...that porno company is going to need a government bailout!

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: wkabel23
And if to want this lady to get a job rather than rely on government assistance to support her family puts me on the right...well, I've been lumped with worse.

I don't care to hear you complain about your position being distorted (it wasn't) when you distort others' statements this way, equating porn with the same as any other work.

As I've said twice already, the view of her as irresponsible and the preference for her to be able to pay for her childrens' needs with *normal* work is not a left/right issue.

Sometimes people don't have a choice in their line of work.

You have made some powerful insights into the American psyche. Americans would rather see a mother doing porn than receive a handout! What have we become?!?

Or you can view it like this...

Americans would rather see an irrresponsbile mother do a dirty job, like porn, to support her children than receive a handout. Hate to break it to you...but that's been a part of American psyche from Day 1 (fine, maybe it took a few weeks to develop).

You are the one infusing normality into this conversation. A job is a job (and if you're in porn, maybe it's a blowjob!).