Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Mother of octuplets already on welfare


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#31 Go To Girl

Go To Girl

    Huddle Mom

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:11 AM

Now this is rich.... she plans to embark on a career as a "television childcare expert," and she expects that offers for media interviews and commercial sponsors will help to provide for her 14 children


So many of the usual companies that come in to the resuce of some of these families that have multiple births have been keeping away from this one because of the backlash. She's in for a rude awakening.

Maybe she could consider the advertising possiblities of letting a company pick their names. I foresee several little kids running around named Golden Palace.

#32 Go To Girl

Go To Girl

    Huddle Mom

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,738 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:13 AM

I don't understand.
IVF, last I heard, was a fee for service procedure, with doctor discretion very much involved in the process.

Malpractice, IMO.
Both the number of implanted embryos AND social situation.



The doc is being investigated by the medical board.

#33 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,515 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:27 AM

We are now supporting their bastard offspring with Welfare funds. The terrorists have won.


If this thread goes over 5 pages the attention ***** will have won.

#34 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,888 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:31 AM

this was god's will

#35 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,182 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:37 AM

this was god's will



:D
The IVF or the welfare?

#36 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,045 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:37 AM

I think we just include her in the stimulus bill, and all will be fine.

#37 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,398 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:43 AM

Maybe she could consider the advertising possiblities of letting a company pick their names. I foresee several little kids running around named Golden Palace.

lolerskates..I love the thought of that!

#38 Epistaxis

Epistaxis

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,182 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:49 AM

I think we just include her in the stimulus bill, and all will be fine.



lol

I tried to make a funny and told the wife I had a stimulus package just for her, no government help needed.


She didn't laugh.

#39 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,032 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:50 AM

So can I assume from the general outrage that most would support the State stepping in and taking custody of the children to place them in foster/adoptive homes?

#40 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,045 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 10 February 2009 - 11:59 AM

So can I assume from the general outrage that most would support the State stepping in and taking custody of the children to place them in foster/adoptive homes?


You make a huge assumption there. Are you advocating the state taking custody of any single woman's children who is on food stamps or other public assistance?

#41 dimbee

dimbee

    Rabble Rouser

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,884 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:05 PM

A woman here at my office is actually defending this lady, saying, "Well, there are some women who aren't able to have children."

I looked at her like she's a lump of dog poo on the sole of my shoe and said, "Really?? That's completely irrelevent, you know? It has nothing at all to do with that. Has she said she's putting these kids up for adoption by women who aren't able to have children of their own? No, she hasn't."

I can't believe how stupid some people are

#42 Scrumtrilescent

Scrumtrilescent

    I aim to misbehave.

  • Administrators
  • 8,596 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:07 PM

Beat her.

#43 Inimicus

Inimicus

    Life is better in a kayak

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,032 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:09 PM

You make a huge assumption there. Are you advocating the state taking custody of any single woman's children who is on food stamps or other public assistance?

I'm not advocating either way. I'm asking the question for the sake of the discussion.

I think in this case a (from what we know through the media) there seems to be a fairly compelling case for acting in the children's best interest and removing them.

And to answer your direct question, no I don't think that just because a single mother is on public assistance she should have to give up her children. I do however wonder if this case doesn't cross a line that causes it to be considered an exception to that belief.

#44 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,045 posts
  • LocationSpartanburg, SC

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:20 PM

I'm not advocating either way. I'm asking the question for the sake of the discussion.

I think in this case a (from what we know through the media) there seems to be a fairly compelling case for acting in the children's best interest and removing them.

And to answer your direct question, no I don't think that just because a single mother is on public assistance she should have to give up her children. I do however wonder if this case doesn't cross a line that causes it to be considered an exception to that belief.


Is there any evidence that she has abused or neglected her other children? What is the "best interest" of the children? Removing them just because you and I disagree with the way she conceived them or the fact that she allowed her self to conceive and give birth to 8 babies to add to her 6? Remove them because she's on government assistance? There's a case, then, for removing children of other welfare recipients, even if there's no evidence that they have abused or neglected their children. That is a slippery slope, for certain.

#45 Panthro

Panthro

    aka Pablo

  • Moderators
  • 23,612 posts

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:22 PM

I'd have been waiting out side her coochie with 7 hangers


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.