1) I care about babies,and I would not want little children to be put into unsafe situations.
2) I don't like do-gooders who intrude into the lives of others and impose their own rules, just because they know best.
I don't know how to reconcile those two concepts. Frankly, the idea that a hospital would confiscate children and tell their mother that she can't have them seemes awfully Orwellian. But of course, Octo-mom seems like a lost cause. What to do?
I am sick of taxpayers being forced to pay for people’s kids especially someone who is unemployed and has the name Suleman which is from the Islamic world. Another example why CA and America are broke.
It seems to me that Octomom could be visited regularly by a social worker to make sure the kids are safe, well fed, and getting adequate medical care.
They could be removed if there is strong evidence that they are not.
It seems that this woman, however irresponsible I view her act, is having children taken from her in advance of neglect or abuse.
I don’t think you can take someone’s kids because you PREDICT they will be a bad parent.
I agree. This is a tough call. One way or another, it looks like responsible people will have to foot the bill. As usual.
I hear ya, a tough call to make. Maybe the State of California should file a lawsuit against the doopy doctor who performed the procedure on her. If you think about it, he certainly is mostly to blame for this whole situation as he certainly could have denied her request for such a procedure.
You state the problem nicely.
However, I think you answered it yourself: “Frankly, the idea that a hospital would confiscate children and tell their mother that she can’t have them seemes awfully Orwellian.”
Confiscation of children, without proof of harm, sets a HORRIBLE precident. Fastforward 10 years. Now picture parents being refused their children because they’re registered as republicans on the grounds that they MAY cause them harm. No proof, just a bureaucrat making a judgement.
Until there is evidence that the children are in danger, the children are hers. If the nanny state decides to support her, then your issue is with the government that encourages dependence, not the mother.