Excellent thread, I saw this really great thread today and I wanted to link to it. Thanks again for taking the time to post….

[...]check this out as this contains important information about[...]…

-He won't.

The State has the right. It is not an economic issue. Rather, it is a human rights issue. Those children deserve the opportunity to be raised in environments that are conducive to them developing normative behaviors and reaching their human potential.

It is inhumane to leave them to be raised by children. We know this because there are reams and reams of data and then there is the prison population that constantly reminds of us the most likely outcome for children born to teenage moms and raised without fathers in the home. Single moms are just as detrimental to those communities as drug dealers because they supply the customers and the dealers and the gangs with the kids to serve those illegal acts.

Yep, the child should be taken. No one has a right to destroy human potential. If you have no right to drink alcohol when pregnant then certainly you have no right to neglect and warp the growth of any human once they are born. Especially, if that neglect and distortion of human values results with them becoming criminals and terrorizing society and communities or them becoming dependents of the state and draining the taxpayers of monies that could be used to improve society…like education and healthcare.

It is no longer acceptable to tolerate this level of abuse and misuse of taxpayers funds. If govenment funds can be restricted and not pay for abortion, then we can also restrict individiuals from creating more individuals to drain tax dollars..by taking them at birth.

Doesn't work…we been there and done that for the last 3 decades and the situation has simply deteriorated. There is now a non-normative culture in the community and the children can never break free as their values are warped…As a result there is a penal overpopulation and they lanquish in prisons.
Children simply can't raise children.

“You are talking about taking a baby away from its mother. Ya'll need to really think about what you are saying.”

yep, folks listened to your emotional appeals for decades and guess what…it is now FAR worse. It has simply not been effective and in fact has created a far worse dynamic. An entire group of people without the slightest interest in becoming a part of society as they subsist in their own sub-culture with values that subvert the larger society and accept criminal activity even homicide.

It is better to give the child at least an opportunity to be raised in an environment that nurtures them as human beings such that they do not become the dregs of society, either addicted to drugs, drug dealing or just a criminal menace to the neighborhood …or like their mother spawning more damn kids that will turn out just as phucked up and continue the cycle of poverty and human misery.

Gotta break the cycle. The best way is to take the children, immediately at birth. Once the mother is grown and can prove she can support herself and the children and not just be a drain on state funds, while raising more people to drain the state of funds….then she can have the child back.

If at anytime before the age of 10 it can be shown their is emotional neglect or physical abuse…then the child should be removed permanently from the home..so as to give the state an opportunity to raise them to become a productive member of society.

When you are consistently producing dependents of the state, your individual rights should be limited as it is a tremendous cost to society and the state, when individuals just reproduce and are uttterly incapable of raising productive citizens.

-He won't.

The State has the right. It is not an economic issue. Rather, it is a human rights issue. Those children deserve the opportunity to be raised in environments that are conducive to them developing normative behaviors and reaching their human potential.

It is inhumane to leave them to be raised by children. We know this because there are reams and reams of data and then there is the prison population that constantly reminds of us the most likely outcome for children born to teenage moms and raised without fathers in the home. Single moms are just as detrimental to those communities as drug dealers because they supply the customers and the dealers and the gangs with the kids to serve those illegal acts.

Yep, the child should be taken. No one has a right to destroy human potential. If you have no right to drink alcohol when pregnant then certainly you have no right to neglect and warp the growth of any human once they are born. Especially, if that neglect and distortion of human values results with them becoming criminals and terrorizing society and communities or them becoming dependents of the state and draining the taxpayers of monies that could be used to improve society…like education and healthcare.

It is no longer acceptable to tolerate this level of abuse and misuse of taxpayers funds. If govenment funds can be restricted and not pay for abortion, then we can also restrict individiuals from creating more individuals to drain tax dollars..by taking them at birth.

Doesn't work…we they lanquish in prisons. Children can't raise children.

It is better to give the child at least an opportunity to be raised in an environment that nurtures them as human beings such that they do not become the dregs of society, either addicted to drugs, drug dealing or just a criminal menace to the neighborhood …or like their mother spawning more damn kids that will turn out just as phucked up and continue the cycle of poverty and human misery.

Gotta break the cycle. The best way is to take the children, immediately at birth. Once the mother is grown and can prove she can support herself and the children and not just be a drain on state funds, while raising more people to drain the state of funds….then she can have the child back.

If at anytime before the age of 10 it can be shown their is emotional neglect or physical abuse…then the child should be removed permanently from the home..so as to give the state an opportunity to raise them to become a productive member of society.

When you are consistently producing dependents of the state, your individual rights should be limited as it is a tremendous cost to society and the state, when individuals just reproduce and are uttterly incapable of raising productive citizens.

I am far, far FAR from a right to lifer. I fully support and believe in a woman's right to have an abortion.

But once the babies are here, ONCE THEY ARE HERE, who has the right to take them from their family. THEIR FAMILY, because said family is poor?

LISTEN TO YOURSELVES!! LISTEN TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

To willingly give a child up for adoption is one thing, but to TAKE A CHILD from that child's family because the family is poor is an entirely different matter.

Ya'll are trippin'!!!

I respectfully say, BULLSHIT! to your “plenty of people who would offer these infants a good home”

Black children routinely languish in care. There are plenty of kids, especially black kids, who need adopting NOW.

Listen to yourself. You are talking about taking a baby away from its mother. Ya'll need to really think about what you are saying.

How about helping these young girls raise their own children? How about helping these young boys raise their own children?

HOW ABOUT THAT!??!!

Do mean to suggest that motherhood is defined by receiving a high school diploma? Are you saying that motherhood is a function of getting a job?

How in the world does what you suggest in anyway helpful to the child OR the mother? And who, pray tell, do you suggest take care of the child for those five years? Surely, not the local Department of Human Services. Most can't take care of the kids that are in their legal care as it is.

If you are really serious, you might want to really think more thoroughly about the consequences of your 'punitive measures.'

http://www.southernstudies.org/iss/board.html

Anyway, I have made my points thoroughly and coherently – the Bizarro world is an interesting place, enjoy it there.

How does this school compare to others?
Has the rate of out-of=wedlock births among black teens gone up or down? By how much?

And believe your memory is in a hole.

ICAM

1. the teenage father still around
2. the boyfriend who didn't bail
3. they found the girl a job with DAYCARE and BENEFITS and she's not even out of high school

there's so much unreality in that show, I shake my head in disgust.