| | "other people's kids" or your tax dollars at workPage 1 of 3 (1, 2, 3) | I think it's been said here previously "Why should I care about other people's kids?" And certainly some have the idea that they should not be concerned with the welfare of kids that don't belong to them.
I *assume* most of us pay taxes. I have one client, who while at a McDonald Youth Services Placement, required 2 staff members at all times. Total cost to CFS: $800/day. That's $24000 a month to care for the girl. I have several clients who require one on one education/tutoring. Cost varies, but it's not parents paying for it. Also, we have street mentors, Spotlight Program, Intensive Support and Supervision Programs, Auto Theft Suppression Strategy, all funded by our gov't as part of probation services.
As a society, we are creating kids that cost us a FORTUNE. CFS virtually never provides stability or security for kids, but costs much money to operate.
So- would you rather have people make a career off of "at risk" kids/youth on your dime, or do something yourself to help them out? (Or for some of you, do nothing and let evolution take it's course (which may involve your car getting stolen a few times...) | |
|
| |
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/17/2009 10:47:20 PM |
So- would you rather have people make a career off of "at risk" kids/youth on your dime, or do something yourself to help them out? (Or for some of you, (which may involve your car getting stolen a few times...)
It's a quandry... but how many of these special needs children could have been screened & identified through amniocentisis ? I ask because I'm ignorant on the subject. If the amniocentisis shows the child is going to be a special needs child when born, the parent ( or parents) should have 2 options :
1) abortion
or
2) carry the baby through full term but the parents accept all financial responsibility for the care & raising of the child if it is special needs, including arranging a fund so if and when the parents die the child will be taken care of with no cost to the taxpayer
And I wonder, how many of the repeat car thieves are special needs?
Cost varies, but it's not parents paying for it.
That's 1 of the problems right there, if little Jane or Johnny can't function in society without an expensive support structure because they're special needs, how is it that isn't the responsibility of the parent?
do nothing and let evolution take it's course
If we did that, then evolution would remove the problem long before the child became a drain on society. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 5:01:55 AM | | Hmmmmm - how responsible is it for you to be discussing "your clients" on a public forum? I don't think the agency that you work for would be real excited about that! As a professional you should know better. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 7:00:35 AM | Discussing specifics is forebidden, and I don't. Moreover, what I say has already been said in court making it public record. I don't work for an "agency" I work for myself.
What do I suggest? People take more active roles. Mentor those who are parents. Mentor those who don't have good parents. Either through organized volunteer work, or your own initiative, do something positive for the life of a kid not your own, who needs help. (And for the record, yes, I work with these kids and get paid, but I also spend about 4-6 hours a week volunteering with innercity/North End kids)
Most of these things would not have been detectable by anmiocentisis. And while I'm not surprised you have no respect for human life Sue, I'm personally anti-abortion, and anti-eugenics, so no, I'm not suggesting we kill everyone with special needs before they're born. (Where did your concern for the innocent go? Oh, innocent and not costing you money is what you care about, I see.)
FASD you can't detect from amniocentisis. Mom's fault? Absolutely. But most women who drink while pregnant are already undereducated and not going to be able to afford special care regardless. Your suggestion of make mom and dad pay when they are never going to be able to only harms the kid- who really, I think is the innocent one in all of this.
There's also too many people having kids who don't know how to be parents- youth and adult. And discipline, focus, and bonding are all things taught at home. We ship kids off to group homes all the time, where they never really learn how a family is supposed to operate, and so they don't know how to "raise" a child when they have their own. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 8:23:56 AM | I would think people would prefur to spend money on pro active steps to help kids and families learn to be strong and more secure before crimes happen rather than after they happen. to be pro active in society would mean to place resourses infront of and within acess to...rather than trying to regroup the milk after it is splattered on the floor.
I think school programs have a high level to strive for in alcohol education to the DRUG EFFECTS of cycling and nature of the beast.
and better life stradegy plans for kids commin from hard ground.
I also think more action with parent participation needs to be set into focus...so weak parents have strong ones beside to help them cope...
not a tattle system of removing children from homes but setting in stradegy to secure life first...not ignore the obviolus and pretend you where not told the truth.
how about put your hand in my hand and we do this together additude instead of your bad and not worthy and you need to jump these hoops or your head meets my heel..roar....
me thinks taxes need to be pro active to solve missing tools with kids who are not on the start line when everyone else is already collecting there ribbons at the finnish line....why would anyone resent or begrudge a canadian child the right to be valued as a total human reguardless of who's azz you fell out off....(is a myth of stigma and when the focus is truely on that people will grasp the start lines are so far apart the race is not real or true...than we find better tools to help kids gain ladditude and find freedom of choice. is when we forget that is a canadian child who has to learn about freedom from race before they can find clarity of human value...
I think when governments set the stage that race or religion leads it destroys indivduality of personal canadian responsibilities cuz the excuses to continue to ignore is already set.....light lightbulb...
me thinks is when every canadian born child knows on birth they have choices outside of there parents choices that the job is complete....cuz if each human stopped learning what there parents did not teach them we would all be back there without evelotion...
pushs cog one forward for humanity..heck lets do two. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 9:19:56 AM |
There's also too many people having kids who don't know how to be parents- youth and adult.
That's really the crux of the problem right there.
Now if you're excuse me, I think I'll go rent Gattaca now... | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 9:58:15 AM |
It's a quandry... but how many of these special needs children could have been screened & identified through amniocentisis ? I ask because I'm ignorant on the subject. If the amniocentisis shows the child is going to be a special needs child when born, the parent ( or parents) should have 2 options : 1) abortion or 2) carry the baby through full term but the parents accept all financial responsibility for the care & raising of the child if it is special needs, including arranging a fund so if and when the parents die the child will be taken care of with no cost to the taxpayer
I read this and almost choked. I didn't realize such attitudes existed like this since say, oh about the second world war. I started looking through the faq, checking out the rules about how I can respond to this without getting thrown out and found that if I really spoke my mind and said what I really felt, I would probably be banned forever.
| |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 10:52:23 AM |
And while I'm not surprised you have no respect for human life Sue, I'm personally anti-abortion, and anti-eugenics, so no, I'm not suggesting we kill everyone with special needs before they're born.
TY for the info on amniocentesis; but if you'd read my entire post, you'd see that I said give the parents the OPTION of an abortion or taking full responsibility for THEIR child.
(What do I suggest? People take more active roles. Mentor those who are parents. Mentor those who don't have good parents. Either through organized volunteer work, or your own initiative, do something positive for the life of a kid not your own, who needs help.
You're quick to tell us why we should use our time to help these people ( nothing wrong with that, kudos to those that do). I'm not surprised you're anti-abortion, since a lot of special needs or disadvantaged children means job security for you. I'm not pro abortion, I am pro choice tho, as long as someone isn't using abortion as a form of birth control.
There's lots of churches all over the city getting tax breaks; why not change things so these churches have to give up so much space for so many hours a day for teaching facilities for speacial needs children & parent skills classes?
Where did your concern for the innocent go? Oh, innocent and not costing you money is what you care about, I see.) ... There's also too many people having kids who don't know how to be parents- youth and adult.
And you think my money should be used for other people's children? What about personal responsibilty? And why not requiring a license if you're going to have childrenm you need to take classes & get a license to drive a car or own a firearm?
Pregnant & no license? NP, did you want an abortion or ro give up th echild for adoption ( family members & friends not eligible for adopting)?
What's that? That's taking away a woman's right to have children? OK, she can have HER child but it's HER child not society's so she ( or they if it's a couple) responsible for the child. If it isn't a couple, then go after the man that got her pregnant for mandatory support payments. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 10:57:17 AM |
I read this and almost choked. I didn't realize such attitudes existed like this since say, oh about the second world war. I started looking through the faq, checking out the rules about how I can respond to this without getting thrown out and found that if I really spoke my mind and said what I really felt, I would probably be banned forever.
??? you take everything posted here as a serious post? Heck, lots of what I post is just to get the thread fired up .
As a matter of fact, I worked for a time with the MAMR ( Manitoba Association for the Mentally Retarded .... sorry this was late 70's and pre politically correctness, that's what it was called) as a day assistant with an autistic gentleman and as a live-in night attendant at a halfway house; these were very rewarding times.
( glad I didn't post my suggestions for compulsory sterilization of those with asthma, cystic fibrosis, type 1 diabetes, peanut allergy, etc etc  ) | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 10:57:51 AM |
I didn't realize such attitudes existed like this since say, oh about the second world war. I’ve been calling susan-cd a Nazi for over a year, finally, someone else noticed! | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 1:04:06 PM |
??? you take everything posted here as a serious post? Heck, lots of what I post is just to get the thread fired up .
Oh!!! You were making a funny. About kids with special needs. I see. So sorry I didn't quite get the joke. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 1:19:27 PM | I’ve been calling susan-cd a Nazi for over a year, finally, someone else noticed!
And as I stated before, I can be a totalitarian WITHOUT being a Nazi.
Btw, still can't seem to find any threads you've started, perhaps you can let me know the title of any such threads ... ( but then, you'd have to actually post some original thoughts and idea, instead of just posting comments on other people's threads saying their ideas won't work or are wrong with no accompanying ideas/suggestions of your own). So much easier to just tell someone else they're wrong if you don't have a solution of your own.
And of course, when no logical educated reply comes to mind, then just call the other person a Nazi or racist, why bother going to all the trouble of debating a point ?
( and again, I can't believe so many people take everythong posted here as serious comments ) | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 1:20:00 PM |
Most of these things would not have been detectable by anmiocentisis. And while I'm not surprised you have no respect for human life Sue, I'm personally anti-abortion, and anti-eugenics, so no, I'm not suggesting we kill everyone with special needs before they're born. (Where did your concern for the innocent go? Oh, innocent and not costing you money is what you care about, I see.)
An embryo isn't innocent or guilty. It is a tiny collection of undifferentiated cells. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 1:22:13 PM |
Oh!!! You were making a funny. About kids with special needs. I see. So sorry I didn't quite get the joke.
Not quite sure how saying someone should get an abortion is making fun of special needs kids, it's just a facetious statement giving a ( ridiculous) suggestion on how to fix a problem. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 1:25:14 PM |
An embryo isn't innocent or guilty. It is a tiny collection of undifferentiated cells. I didn't realise amniocentises could be done on embryos- I thought being a fetus was a little more necessary. This is not supposed to be an abortion debate. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 1:32:10 PM | This one's for flyin-high.
Godwin's Law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More spoken articles Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a mainstay of Internet culture, an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[1]
Godwin's Law does not dispute whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[2] that overuse of the Nazi/Hitler comparison should be avoided, as it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[3] the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.
There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's Law. Thus Godwin's Law serves to impose an upper bound on thread length in general. It is considered poor form to raise arbitrarily such a comparison with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's Law will be unsuccessful (this is sometimes referred to as "Quirk's Exception").[4]
Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. Instead, it applies to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations to Hitler or Nazis. However, Godwin's Law can itself also be abused, as a distraction or diversion, to fallaciously miscast an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparison the argument made were actually appropriate. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 2:12:55 PM | Ok, let's go back and take a look at what you said.
If the amniocentisis shows the child is going to be a special needs child when born, the parent ( or parents) should have 2 options :
1) abortion
or
2) carry the baby through full term but the parents accept all financial responsibility for the care & raising of the child if it is special needs, including arranging a fund so if and when the parents die the child will be taken care of with no cost to the taxpayer
Now don't you see how someone could take that to mean that if the parents do not terminate a pregnancy, if it's known a child may be handicapped, the state, government or taxpayer (take your pick) should not contribute to the care and well being of special needs children?
Now even if you meant that as you say " facetiously" do you understand how some people might take offense at such remarks?
And this has nothing to do with abortion. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 2:25:23 PM | There is a big difference between children being born disable as a result of nature, when the mother does everthing right to have a safe, normal and healthy child, and those who have absolutely no regard for the baby they have produced and drink, take drugs, smoke and do other things.
I believe that as a society, we have removed the personal responsiblility for harming a child before its been born, as the rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the child. Then in most instances the mother/parents dump the child because it disrupts their lifestyle. I would like to see criminal charges laid against women who do that, but with our Charter of Rights, it will never happen.
Criminals stand in court and cry the blues about their terrible childhood, and once again, whatever the crime, the punishment is always lessened and things get chalked up to "oh that poor person". I would like to see the death penality and strike 3 rule in effect here. IMO if you are not a contributing law abiding citizen, then you should not have the priviledges afforded to and paid by contributing law abiding citizens. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/18/2009 9:22:33 PM | There is also a big difference when u know something is wrong and choosing to proceed cuz you don't have the guts to make a decision after test results come back real bad......to have a history to understand this i think you would need to understand the value of death and the reward of what life could value to you::: even if others don't think your correct you must do what is right for your own mental needs...
let me tell you saying goodbye to a child is not pleasent...and watching parents loose there child is not pretty but one thing i do know is the child perfict or not will change the very being of your soul...to each there own on this extreemly personal decision...for i believe every human on the planet teaches others around them a value which only upon death we learn...my lessons in the valley gave me gifts to share for in the tinyist human is the love of parents who wished apon a star. it is those special human's who taught me life is precious no matter how insignificant it is to YOU....
I think it takes an extrodinary human to find value where others find none and is only stupid normal human's who have no challenges to compare that have time to think about others rights to live there lives..heck why do we think special needs people are at the bottom of evolve pile when actually they are at the top so many times.
Patience is learned and almost every special needs human eventually does grasp patience to deal with NORMAL after all...........
oh stop cryin in your normal soup your soft putty to slam into the wall.  | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/19/2009 9:19:37 AM |
Now don't you see how someone could take that to mean that if the parents do not terminate a pregnancy, if it's known a child may be handicapped, the state, government or taxpayer (take your pick) should not contribute to the care and well being of special needs children?
It would be a solution, not saying it'd be a good one.
But could you explain why, if a parent ( or parents) knew they were going to have a child that was going to be severely handicapped the taxpayers ( you mention the state and government, but all the $$ they have comes from the taxpayers) should be on the financial hook for the increased costs of such a child? If the parents chose to have the child rather than an abortion, it was their choice, let them live with the consequences/reality of their choice. Some couples are choosing to delay having children because they feel they can't afford one right now due to their financial situation, parents that choose to have a special need child should ensure they ( not th taxpayers) can afford to have one. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/19/2009 9:23:32 AM |
As a society, we are creating kids that cost us a FORTUNE.
captain girlygirl, I missed this comment on the original post. I think you meant to say "some PARENTS are creating kids that cost us a FORTUNE".
Unless there's some process recently discovered that allows impregnation through some form of osmosis, if that's the case we should avoid crowds & public transportation! | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/19/2009 11:26:23 AM | Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh Captain Girly excellent thread....
Personally I am neither pro life or pro abortion. To me it really depends on a lot of factors.
An unwanted pregancy or child brings forth many challenges. Mom's that are in this situation tend to now take care of the fetus because they do not want it. End story there. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT MEAN ALL.
As for a child gone wrong welllllllll.... lets look at reality. We are all at fault here parent or no parent. The day we allowed the government to step in take away our parenting rights was one nail in the coffin. I am not pro abuse at all but a simple spanking does not hurt. Now parents are afraid to be parents because they can not do so effectively.
Like combing your hair with a comb that has no teeth.
Now that we have created this monster of a problem it will take time to reverse the situation. No we do not want to revert back completely to the 1950 era but diffenitly bring back some of the same tactics.
Love without abuse but a strong hand. No must mean NO. There have to be consequenses for actions that match the crime.
This will require parents, grandparents, schools and the justice to work together. There were some good ideas here like matching a good parent with a weaker parent. That is good but there is no clear way that one can determine what is a gooood parent.
Personally uneducated parents can be just as good a parent. However, money does talk, but I have also seen very wealthy parents have the same issues as the family with zero money. Why is that..... one doesn't have the money to give so the child feels deprived and just takes what he wants and the wealthy parents give to the child whatever he wants with little or no wish to spend time with said child so child takes just cause he can. All either child can or will do is say "poor me, my parents negaleted me" or "I was abused" no one wants to take responsibility.
Now for the child that has challenges in his life, such as FAS, well education and coping situations are part of the problem as to why children are born with it. Sometimes these children are born when a mom has done everything right. It doesn't matter what your social financial background is it takes a lot of people to help these children grow.
However Captain Girly so far lots of what you say makes sense for a change.
good banter here.... love the debat going on  | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/19/2009 11:47:24 AM |
The day we allowed the government to step in take away our parenting rights was one nail in the coffin. I am not pro abuse at all but a simple spanking does not hurt. Now parents are afraid to be parents because they can not do so effectively.
Gotta agree with you on this, a spanking in & of itself isn't necessarily child abuse ( unless you're spanking the child in anger, that'd mean you've lost control). If I recall correctly, I was spanked 3 times when I was growing up, & looking at why my father spanked me, I deserved it each time. | |
|
| other people's kids or your tax dollars at work
Posted: 6/19/2009 12:26:27 PM |
But could you explain why, if a parent ( or parents) knew they were going to have a child that was going to be severely handicapped… The parents never “know” for sure, neither do the doctors, the specialists or anyone else for that matter… there are NO guarantees.
Example:
Accuracy of an amniocentesis test = 99.5%. This means 1 out of 200 will be misdiagnosed. Even if you test 2 or 3 times you would only be reducing the odds, and not eliminating the potential for error.
I guess it depends what you consider acceptable odds for killing a perfectly healthy baby.
| |
|
Home
login 
