Woman has Octuplets, after having 6 others en vitro

[Avatar]

I've never tried to suggest that she wasn't responsible. Just that, IMO, she didn't set out to bilk any taxpayers, nor did she willfully disregard bilking the taxpayers. In all likelyhood she was derangedly focused on her idea of motherhood and she probably didn't even recognize the issue.

I think I agree with WF on this. If we're talking about the question of intent, I certainly agree that I doubt the thought of any of these (tax/welfare) issues came to mind for her.

We might argue that they should have, but I'm pretty sure she wasn't setting out to defraud anybody, let alone welfare or tax payers.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

I've never tried to suggest that she wasn't responsible. Just that, IMO, she didn't set out to bilk any taxpayers, nor did she willfully disregard bilking the taxpayers. In all likelyhood she was derangedly focused on her idea of motherhood and she probably didn't even recognize the issue.

I think I agree with WF on this. If we're talking about the question of intent, I certainly agree that I doubt the thought of any of these (tax/welfare) issues came to mind for her.

We might argue that they should have, but I'm pretty sure she wasn't setting out to defraud anybody, let alone welfare or tax payers.

--A

That's like saying I didn't set out to rob a bank, I just wanted to make a withdrawl to pay my rent.

[Avatar]

No it's not, It's like saying that you didn't mean to hurt someones feelings when you criticise them.

As an aside, would your taxes be lower if she hadn't done this?

--A

[sgt.null]

take away the doctor's license. sue the clinic. have the woman investigated. if she proves unable to support the kids, step in and find parents who can. why let the kids go hungry or neglected because of this woman?

[Zarathustra]

Av, taxes probably wouldn't be lower. They'd just spend it on something else.

I think the problem is government assistance. If the government wouldn't be an enabler of this kind of abuse, she would be forced to give the kids up for adoption, where they'd be taken care of MUCH better than they will with her.

If people can't afford to take care of their kids, we shouldn't pay them to keep having more. That's insane. If we didn't pay for them, these low-life parents would be forced to give them up. If they refused, and still didn't take care of them, then the government could intervene. Simple. Supporting her insane choices is just as insane as she is.

[wayfriend]

Wait ... what?

If the government wouldn't be an enabler of this kind of abuse, she would be forced to give the kids up for adoption, where they'd be taken care of MUCH better than they will with her.

So if you need public assistance, and have a kid, you should be forced to give it up for adoption?!?!

That's pretty nasty. I couldn't agree with this very general rule. It's inhumane. It makes taxes as more important than human rights. It falsly presumes that someone needing assistance will never not need assistance.

If people can't afford to take care of their kids, we shouldn't pay them to keep having more.

No one pays people to have kids. That's a misrepresentation of the facts.

[Zarathustra]

So if you need public assistance, and have a kid, you should be forced to give it up for adoption?!?!

That's pretty nasty. I couldn't agree with this very general rule. It's inhumane. It makes taxes as more important than human rights. It falsly presumes that someone needing assistance will never not need assistance.

No, not forced to give it up for adoption. You should only be forced if you are not taking care of your kids. Poor people find ways to take care of their kids all the time (charity, jobs). If the ONLY way you can afford to have kids is by forcing your neighbor to pay for it, then I'd say you don't have a "right" to have kids. Your "rights" shouldn't include forcing other people to do anything. Your rights stop at my wallet. You don't have a right to my money. You don't have a right to do stuff you can't afford. And you don't have a right to force children to suffer from your own narcissism.

I'm not saying that "someone needing assistance will never not need assistance." This woman was already receiving public assistance, and then chose to have 8 more kids! That's more than needing assistance. That's purposely putting yourself (and your children) in a position where you know you will have to receive assistance. In other words, forcing the public to pay for her kids. Since she knew she couldn't pay for them (big clue was that she was already receiving assistance for the 6 she had), she absolutely intended to force the public to pay for it. That was her intention all along. How could it have been otherwise, unless she is just completely insane? (If so, then we should take the kids now.)

People sometimes need temporary assistance. I don't think their kids should be taken away for temporary, unforeseen misfortune. But having 8 kids when you're already receiving public assistance for 6 doesn't fall into the "temporary, unforeseen misfortune" category. This is abuse of the system, abuse of my rights. And the government is letting it happen.

[wayfriend]

So if you need public assistance, and have a kid, you should be forced to give it up for adoption?!?!

That's pretty nasty. I couldn't agree with this very general rule. It's inhumane. It makes taxes as more important than human rights. It falsly presumes that someone needing assistance will never not need assistance.

No, not forced to give it up for adoption.

Well, I admit I was confused by the word "forced" in the phrase "forced to give the kids up for adoption".

If the ONLY way you can afford to have kids is by forcing your neighbor to pay for it, then I'd say you don't have a "right" to have kids.

Again I hear an unspoken assumption that anyone on public assistance desires to be in that condition and doesn't want to leave it. Which is twisted.

Circumstances force people to be on public assistance from time to time, for a little while. Such times coincide with a child being born.

If I'm on public assistance for three months, but I had the bad luck to have a child born during that time, do I lose my right to keep that child?

If I'm on public assistance for a year, and I had the bad luck to have an unanticipated pregnancy, do I lose my right to keep that child?

If not, and I see that you don't, then you're skewing your justification by implying that people on public assistance are only there because they're trying to live off of other people's money, and they don't ever want to get off of it.

Your "rights" shouldn't include forcing other people to do anything. Your rights stop at my wallet. You don't have a right to my money. You don't have a right to do stuff you can't afford. And you don't have a right to force children to suffer from your own narcissism.

That's really powerful stuff there. But, despite your insinuation that I implied any of these things, I didn't. I hope your argument is more than rhetoric directed at nothing.

This woman was already receiving public assistance, and then chose to have 8 more kids! That's more than needing assistance. That's purposely putting yourself (and your children) in a position where you know you will have to receive assistance.

I would agree, except in this case it seems that the woman doesn't have all her marbles. But lets assume another imaginary case where she does.

In which case, you still go to far in your proposal to fix the problem. Either that, or you fail to determine how a line is drawn between someone who got caught at a bad time and someone whose wilfully misusing the system.

Nor do you provide any justification for how saving taxpayers money should supercede keeping children with their own mother. Your punishment doesn't fit the crime.

[SoulBiter]

Again I hear an unspoken assumption that anyone on public assistance desires to be in that condition and doesn't want to leave it. Which is twisted.

Circumstances force people to be on public assistance from time to time, for a little while. Such times coincide with a child being born.

But isnt that also an assumption that some of these people dont want to be on public assistance. How about those that dont 'want' to be on public assistance but wont do anything for themselves to get off of public assistance. Its kind of like the people that 'want' to lose weight (and Im not talking about ALL people that want to lose weight, just a segment of those) that also say they dont have time to work out but then you will find them watching 3 hours of TV every evening to 'wind down'.

[wayfriend]

But isnt that also an assumption that some of these people dont want to be on public assistance.

I'm fine with the assumption that some people don't want to be on public assistance.

I'm not fine with the assumption that everyone doesn't want to be, if that's what you mean.

Same question to you ... how do you tell which is which? Or do you want to say, the hell with figuring it out, let's treat them *all* like freeloaders?

[Rawedge Rim]

But isnt that also an assumption that some of these people dont want to be on public assistance.

I'm fine with the assumption that some people don't want to be on public assistance.

I'm not fine with the assumption that everyone doesn't want to be, if that's what you mean.

Same question to you ... how do you tell which is which? Or do you want to say, the hell with figuring it out, let's treat them *all* like freeloaders?

But if she had a screw loose, then why was she allowed to have more children implanted into her at the public expense?

[SoulBiter]

But isnt that also an assumption that some of these people dont want to be on public assistance.

I'm fine with the assumption that some people don't want to be on public assistance.

I'm not fine with the assumption that everyone doesn't want to be, if that's what you mean.

Same question to you ... how do you tell which is which? Or do you want to say, the hell with figuring it out, let's treat them *all* like freeloaders?

By their actions. Saying I dont want to be on public assistance isnt good enough. If they arent doing anything to get off of it then, IMHO they dont really want to be off public assistance or they arent willing to do whats necessary to get off of public assistance.

[sindatur]

So if you need public assistance, and have a kid, you should be forced to give it up for adoption?!?!

That's pretty nasty. I couldn't agree with this very general rule. It's inhumane. It makes taxes as more important than human rights. It falsly presumes that someone needing assistance will never not need assistance.

No, not forced to give it up for adoption.

Well, I admit I was confused by the word "forced" in the phrase "forced to give the kids up for adoption".

If the ONLY way you can afford to have kids is by forcing your neighbor to pay for it, then I'd say you don't have a "right" to have kids.

Again I hear an unspoken assumption that anyone on public assistance desires to be in that condition and doesn't want to leave it. Which is twisted.

Circumstances force people to be on public assistance from time to time, for a little while. Such times coincide with a child being born.

If I'm on public assistance for three months, but I had the bad luck to have a child born during that time, do I lose my right to keep that child?

If I'm on public assistance for a year, and I had the bad luck to have an unanticipated pregnancy, do I lose my right to keep that child?

If not, and I see that you don't, then you're skewing your justification by implying that people on public assistance are only there because they're trying to live off of other people's money, and they don't ever want to get off of it.

Your "rights" shouldn't include forcing other people to do anything. Your rights stop at my wallet. You don't have a right to my money. You don't have a right to do stuff you can't afford. And you don't have a right to force children to suffer from your own narcissism.

That's really powerful stuff there. But, despite your insinuation that I implied any of these things, I didn't. I hope your argument is more than rhetoric directed at nothing.

This woman was already receiving public assistance, and then chose to have 8 more kids! That's more than needing assistance. That's purposely putting yourself (and your children) in a position where you know you will have to receive assistance.

I would agree, except in this case it seems that the woman doesn't have all her marbles. But lets assume another imaginary case where she does.

In which case, you still go to far in your proposal to fix the problem. Either that, or you fail to determine how a line is drawn between someone who got caught at a bad time and someone whose wilfully misusing the system.

Nor do you provide any justification for how saving taxpayers money should supercede keeping children with their own mother. Your punishment doesn't fit the crime.

pssst...Having enough fertilized embryos put into you artificially to create 8 babies doesn't result in an unintended births. That is most definitely planned births, there is absolutely no way to deny that. That's what we're talking about here, is abuse, not coincidence

[Avatar]

Av, taxes probably wouldn't be lower. They'd just spend it on something else.

Yeah, that was sorta my point. No matter what the government spends your taxes on, they're still gonna take them from you.

--A

[wayfriend]

But isnt that also an assumption that some of these people dont want to be on public assistance.

I'm fine with the assumption that some people don't want to be on public assistance.

I'm not fine with the assumption that everyone doesn't want to be, if that's what you mean.

Same question to you ... how do you tell which is which? Or do you want to say, the hell with figuring it out, let's treat them *all* like freeloaders?

By their actions. Saying I dont want to be on public assistance isnt good enough. If they arent doing anything to get off of it then, IMHO they dont really want to be off public assistance or they arent willing to do whats necessary to get off of public assistance.

That seems to be begging the question, as it's vague and immeasurable. What would you measure? In other words, if it was your job to fairly decide, in a way that you could document the justification (as opposed to trusting to conservative freeloader radar), what would you use as a determinant?

But if she had a screw loose, then why was she allowed to have more children implanted into her at the public expense?

Good question. Who's the official in charge of "allowing" children?

[Avatar]

Can't legislate stuff like that. Much as I might wish you could. We're forced to trust people's "common sense." Ha.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

But if she had a screw loose, then why was she allowed to have more children implanted into her at the public expense?

Good question. Who's the official in charge of "allowing" children?

How about the accountant when the young woman was asked "How are you going to pay for this?"

[wayfriend]

But if she had a screw loose, then why was she allowed to have more children implanted into her at the public expense?

Good question. Who's the official in charge of "allowing" children?

How about the accountant when the young woman was asked "How are you going to pay for this?"

I don't know where you're going with this. What accountant? (I thinking your glossing over details too much here.)

She had the money for the procedure (no?). She didn't get it from public assistance AFAICT.

Should a medical professional say "I'm going to turn you away even though you qualify medically for this procedure and even though you can pay me, because I disagree with the way you use public assistance money?"

I really think we don't want doctors judging people's lifestyles, it's not their job and it endangers peoples lives.

[sindatur]

But if she had a screw loose, then why was she allowed to have more children implanted into her at the public expense?

Good question. Who's the official in charge of "allowing" children?

How about the accountant when the young woman was asked "How are you going to pay for this?"

I don't know where you're going with this. What accountant? (I thinking your glossing over details too much here.)

She had the money for the procedure (no?). She didn't get it from public assistance AFAICT.

Should a medical professional say "I'm going to turn you away even though you qualify medically for this procedure and even though you can pay me, because I disagree with the way you use public assistance money?"

I really think we don't want doctors judging people's lifestyles, it's not their job and it endangers peoples lives.

There are guidelines that Doctors should be following that say you only put up to 4 embryos in. It's not a legal guideline, but, it's an ethical guideline. So, yea, the doctor should have said it wasn't an acceptable practice in the Medical Community at large to do enough that produced 8 babies

[wayfriend]

There are guidelines that Doctors should be following that say you only put up to 4 embryos in. It's not a legal guideline, but, it's an ethical guideline. So, yea, the doctor should have said it wasn't an acceptable practice in the Medical Community at large to do enough that produced 8 babies

Agreed. The doctor is liable in that regard.

But those are medical guidelines.

Not guidelines based on your financial situation.