Mother of 15 Kids: “Somebody needs to pay for all my children."

[Hawker]

http://nation.foxnews.com/homelessness/2011/12/01/homeless-lady-15-kids-somebody-needs-pay-all-my-children

Seriously, she got locked up for swearing in front of a child?  Her husband got arrested because there may have been a child in the room when they were having sex and is still awaiting trial?  As a result, she is left homeless and is arrested again on suspicion that she might have had sex with another man?  What kind of crazy system is that?

[1713996773]

1713996773

[1713996773]

1713996773

[1713996773]

1713996773

[ineededausername]

http://nation.foxnews.com/homelessness/2011/12/01/homeless-lady-15-kids-somebody-needs-pay-all-my-children

Seriously, she got locked up for swearing in front of a child?  Her husband got arrested because there may have been a child in the room when they were having sex and is still awaiting trial?  As a result, she is left homeless and is arrested again on suspicion that she might have had sex with another man?  What kind of crazy system is that?

Oh wow, that's pretty fucked-up.

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

[ineededausername]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Atlas sees the light!
Of course, he will defend to his death the mother's right to be free from coercion and to keep her children, probably.

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Atlas sees the light!
Of course, he will defend to his death the mother's right to be free from coercion and to keep her children, probably.

The mother has the right to herself as long she doesn't infringe the rights of other individuals: the children and the slaves of the state.

[cbeast]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Even Thomas Jefferson realized that this is not so when he proposed the General Welfare clause “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare .”

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Even Thomas Jefferson realized that this is not so when he proposed the General Welfare clause “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare .”

Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. It only means to act within the powers that are enumerated within the constitution: that doesn't include coercive, involuntary welfare. So, Thomas Jefferson had no such thoughts in regards to voluntary charity. Hopefully he doesn't kill you in your sleep.

"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please... Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on National Bank, 1791. ME 3:148

[Explodicle]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

[ALPHA.]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

You are not the only one that cares for them. What about them? Those who want to care for them, should do so. It's very simple.

If you want something, it doesn't mean you are entitled to steal and enslave to get it.

[deuxmill]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes  them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.

[cbeast]

We should all take personal responsibility for the children in our community. If you are not a parent, then at least do something directly to be involved with helping children become a part of the community. I have little respect for any older adult that lived selfishly and did nothing significant to help children. I would not enter into any serious business venture with such a person because I simply would not trust someone that lives that way.

[deuxmill]

We should all take personal responsibility for the children in our community. If you are not a parent, then at least do something directly to be involved with helping children become a part of the community. I have little respect for any older adult that lived selfishly and did nothing significant to help children. I would not enter into any serious business venture with such a person because I simply would not trust someone that lives that way.

See no need for slavery.

[cbeast]

See no need for slavery.

No worries, mate. Slavery has been abolished for centuries in most regions.

[Explodicle]

Regarding the "children have potential" argument - what about the kids with little chance of significant contribution, like those born with severe mental disabilities?

This should be about children's rights, not expected futures. Children have enough to deal with without feeling indebted to society for existing.

Children are humans. They are not different. And they are not in dept to anyone , and none owes  them nothing.
That means we should help all children but not forced to.

I generally agree. The area where I think we may differ is whether or not taking away the child's right to move freely by privatizing land justifies reimbursement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen's_dividend

You guys sensationalize "X is theft, Y is SLAVERY" all the time, and then justify stealing from every child born too late to claim scarce resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

So yeah, we all do owe something to children. They are entitled to their share of this planet we all got for free.

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

[Hawker]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

[ALPHA.]

I'm glad she no longer has custody of the children. I'm glad people don't want her to have any more children.

Suddenly seeing why the state might have its place in child protection?

Nope. The state isn't the only one capable of providing such services. People provide services and they do so because they desire to do so. People obviously desire children to be care for: It's human instinct. They will be cared for regardless of a tyrannical state.

Only the state can forcibly take the children away from her.  Unless you are proposing a free for all in which anyone can snatch a child ?

Heh, there will never be a free-for-all where anybody can snatch a child. In the end, it will be the strongest desire of the people. People do not want undeterred child abductions.

The strongest desire of the people is that social services are provided for children such as these.  Part of that if forcibly taking the children from the family.  Only the state can authorise that.

It is not the strongest desire of the people. The government is not the people. It only happens to be the power in charge. Anything can happen as long as the might allows it, even revolution.