Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You're really going to C/P a bullshit link slamming republicans in defense of a crack whore poisoning her kids?
Isn't this a hypothetical thread...?
Maybe we could discuss abortions and fathers who impregnate their daughters...
MeBelle60 said:Hi, you have received -173 reputation points from MeBelle60.
Reputation was given for this post.
Comment:
Your apology is expected.
Regards,
MeBelle60
Note: This is an automated message.
What should the law do about a 25-year-old drug addict who has had six children so far and shows no signs of stopping either having children or using drugs.
This is not a hypothetical situation.
The law seems impotent to protect the children she is carrying. Am I wrong? I hope I'm wrong.
What should the law do about a 25-year-old drug addict who has had six children so far and shows no signs of stopping either having children or using drugs.
This is not a hypothetical situation.
The law seems impotent to protect the children she is carrying. Am I wrong? I hope I'm wrong.
What should the law do about a 25-year-old drug addict who has had six children so far and shows no signs of stopping either having children or using drugs.
This is not a hypothetical situation.
The law seems impotent to protect the children she is carrying. Am I wrong? I hope I'm wrong.
What should the law do about a 25-year-old drug addict who has had six children so far and shows no signs of stopping either having children or using drugs.
This is not a hypothetical situation.
The law seems impotent to protect the children she is carrying. Am I wrong? I hope I'm wrong.
If anyone insists on drug testing for her to keep benefits for the children. the ACLU will go after them. I'm betting she's on welfare and since she's already in the system, they probably spent a lot of money putting her through government programs to be a better parent, so that should have solved the problem completely. We are enabling a lot of drug addicts and endangering many children by allowing unconditional access to tax payer money just for having children. Many have figured that out and are taking advantage. We are hard pressed to do much because government regulations and rules are dictating how things go and they protect their dependents.
What really gets me is that I'll end up on some government watch list for saying socialism is bad and I think we should drill our own oil, yet this woman can endanger and maybe kill one of her children through negligence and the same government that is worried about me will look the other way when their dependents pose real dangers.
What should the law do about a 25-year-old drug addict who has had six children so far and shows no signs of stopping either having children or using drugs.
This is not a hypothetical situation.
The law seems impotent to protect the children she is carrying. Am I wrong? I hope I'm wrong.
If anyone insists on drug testing for her to keep benefits for the children. the ACLU will go after them. I'm betting she's on welfare and since she's already in the system, they probably spent a lot of money putting her through government programs to be a better parent, so that should have solved the problem completely. We are enabling a lot of drug addicts and endangering many children by allowing unconditional access to tax payer money just for having children. Many have figured that out and are taking advantage. We are hard pressed to do much because government regulations and rules are dictating how things go and they protect their dependents.
What really gets me is that I'll end up on some government watch list for saying socialism is bad and I think we should drill our own oil, yet this woman can endanger and maybe kill one of her children through negligence and the same government that is worried about me will look the other way when their dependents pose real dangers.
bull crap..if a woman had 6 children born with drugs in her system and this was known the courts they would insist on drug treatment,drug testing to keep custody of the children..things may slip through the cracks but not 6 children born with drugs in their system with no intervention, something is wrong with this story
What should the law do about a 25-year-old drug addict who has had six children so far and shows no signs of stopping either having children or using drugs.
This is not a hypothetical situation.
The law seems impotent to protect the children she is carrying. Am I wrong? I hope I'm wrong.
Link?
You're really going to C/P a bullshit link slamming republicans in defense of a crack whore poisoning her kids?
Isn't this a hypothetical thread...?
Maybe we could discuss abortions and fathers who impregnate their daughters...
negged for lack of compassion
If anyone insists on drug testing for her to keep benefits for the children. the ACLU will go after them. I'm betting she's on welfare and since she's already in the system, they probably spent a lot of money putting her through government programs to be a better parent, so that should have solved the problem completely. We are enabling a lot of drug addicts and endangering many children by allowing unconditional access to tax payer money just for having children. Many have figured that out and are taking advantage. We are hard pressed to do much because government regulations and rules are dictating how things go and they protect their dependents.
What really gets me is that I'll end up on some government watch list for saying socialism is bad and I think we should drill our own oil, yet this woman can endanger and maybe kill one of her children through negligence and the same government that is worried about me will look the other way when their dependents pose real dangers.
bull crap..if a woman had 6 children born with drugs in her system and this was known the courts they would insist on drug treatment,drug testing to keep custody of the children..things may slip through the cracks but not 6 children born with drugs in their system with no intervention, something is wrong with this story
Sadly, this story is common. I worked in a hospital for years and we had a duty to report any suspected child abuse. I've seen babies born addicted to drugs, I've seen drugged out parents come in with their children. We report it, a social worker follows up. They usually contact the person and make an appointment, then the parent is put on one of their programs if they deem it necessary. One program to prevent child neglect meant a social worker went to the home and went over things with the parent, such as feeding the child 3 times a day, getting them up for school and bathing them, etc. Of course, the parents already know what they are supposed to do, but as soon as they take their drugs or drink alcohol, they just don't care anymore and the children are on their own.
I've seen some horror stories and have complained loudly when we would see the same children all the time and it was always neglect. I was told that once the people are "in the system", rarely are the children taken away. I've seen parents put in these useless jokes they call programs for neglect, abuse, drug/alcohol addiction, pornography addiction, child endangerment, etc. and it's all a waste of time, but the state can claim they've done everything possible and spend a pile of money in the process. It's never until a child is seriously injured or killed that they get serious about dealing with it, but it's too late then.
Welfare recipients are the most likely, in my experience, to have these problems. It's just the way it is, so don't yell at me because I am conveying what I observed in 30 years. I knew who was on welfare by the insurance information. Used to call it Title 19. The welfare parents are the ones who likely smoke, drink and do drugs. But, since they are already under the government's wing, they tend to spend more money on these useless programs instead of taking prudent action, like removing the children from the home. It sounds all compassionate to say they want to keep families together, but why in the hell do you want to keep innocent children with an abusive or addicted parent? Non-welfare people were treated much differently. A kid with a bruise on his leg was removed from the home, then the matter was investigated. Turned out the kid hurt his leg in baseball practice, but the state traumatized him for a week by placing him in foster care while they figured that out.
If people are in the system, it's like the government coddles them no matter what happens. I've had many conversation with other nurses and doctors over the years about the disparity in how people are treated by government and how the children lose. The government claims to want to help kids, but end up doing more harm in the long run. I find that is the case with most government programs.
absolutely correct!The problem with this is that giving our government the power to solve this problem creates a still larger problem.
A government that has the right to invade the pregancy of EVERY woman.
What should the law do about a 25-year-old drug addict who has had six children so far and shows no signs of stopping either having children or using drugs.
This is not a hypothetical situation.
The law seems impotent to protect the children she is carrying. Am I wrong? I hope I'm wrong.
Link?
She never posts links. Probably some Newsmax or other wingnut story that she is ashamed of.
Link?
She never posts links. Probably some Newsmax or other wingnut story that she is ashamed of.
She states it is not a hypothetical situation.
In NJ, if a new mother tests positive in the hospital, the infant is taken away immediately. She has one year to get into treatment and get clean. If she fails, the child is put up for ADOPTION - no more foster care. I can't imagine anyone going through that more than once, let alone six times, but I'm sure it has happened.
shades of 'a handmaiden's tale'
