Should the State of California place all of Nadya Suleman's children in foster care?

C

chapas45

New member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Points
1
ME--maybe because she has no source of income and perhaps mentally ill?
 
If she can't care for them adequately, they might end up there.
 
On what grounds? Be careful the precedent you are asking to be set. If the reason is that she can't take care of them, the state of California would be taking away the children of every mother on public aid. If you claim it is because it is too many children, remember that 50 years ago 14 kids in a family wasn't unusual. So what is the reason?
 
No to foster care... Yes to adoption!!!!

I dont believe foster care works and I'm sure there are families out there who haven't got children of their own whould love to have 1 or 2 of them.
 
yes, and while they're doing that, her uterus should be removed
 
If you really think they should be taken away, they should be adopted, not put in foster care. Foster care is limbo. The children deserve a life. They are not the criminals. At the very least the doctor should lose his medical license forever. And be required to help support the children.
 
only in the case of willful disregard for the children's health and safety.

If you support such actions, then someday your children could be next.

Peace
Jim

.
Addendum:
I just love it how people make blanket statements about people they do not know.
Some people think soccer moms are nuts, does that mean we should declare them nuts and take their children away from them?
We obviously do not know if this mother is nuts are not, certainly not by the news and the sound bites we get from it. That is up to people much closer to this then the moralistic pundits here.

Moral of the story
Don't wish for something which can be taken away from you too.
 
Back
Top