TrinityIHC wrote:I agree that the woman shouldn't be publicly named and shamed, but the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to fork out what is a significant sum of money each year because she can't keep her legs closed.
So the kids should starve to death or be flung out on the streets? What do you suggest is done with the kids?
Who else other than the taxpayer is going to pay for their welfare if she can't? "...the taxpayer shouldn't be expected to fork out what is a significant sum of money each year because she can't keep her legs closed." is glib nonsense.
Some very good friends of ours adopted four siblings and I know there are at least two further children from the same mother. Our friends were looking to adopt as they could not have kids themselves and were delighted to be offered two children and went ahead. The women unfortunately kept producing and while they were not initially very keen on taking another from the production line they did when no. 3 popped out and did the same again when no. 4 arrived. They were asked to do it by social services and did so to keep the siblings together.
The mother was deemed unfit and not cable of looking after the children and so they ended up on the adoption register as soon as they were born.
Now the cost of doing all this is NOT cheap. The point is whichever way you handle it there are going to be rare occasions where some woman for all sorts of reasons end up with a large number of children and if they can't look after them then the rest of society has no option but to do so. People just need to get over it, accept it doesn't happen very often and move on.
