Bah, humbug
Just to get everybody in a giving holiday mood, I guess, the Portland Tribune ran a big front-page spread today about homeless people who have babies -- including comments from critics of the "welfare state" that supports such families.
This is a legitimate debate, but a week and a half before Christmas? Yuck.
Comments (11)
I was trying to figure out how they could afford a "birth cam," but it seems to be a typo.
Posted by Bluehole | December 14, 2004 6:19 PM
I think when they ask me for change, I'll start handing out condoms instead.
Posted by Bluehole | December 14, 2004 6:22 PM
"I think when they ask me for change, I'll start handing out condoms instead."
That's the best idea I've heard all day.
Anyone want to put odds on the chances of this child -- Christmas or no -- getting a decent childhood or solid base in life? I'd say about nine zillion to one.
Sorry, Jack, I think it's a real stretch to call this a "family."
A real long, long stretch.
Posted by Sally | December 14, 2004 8:58 PM
Jack, I notice Phil Stanford, in his Tribune Column gave you a shout as "P-Town's most readable blog"
Posted by zenwanderer | December 14, 2004 9:11 PM
I always wondered how she was able to buy hair dye...or why she would keep changing her hair color if she was pregnant and on the streets. Aren't there better ways to spend money?
Posted by AD | December 14, 2004 10:40 PM
A cold wind blows through these comments.
Posted by Grady | December 14, 2004 11:04 PM
Wow, as if the article itself was not “yucky” enough, reading the comments about this article make me seriously ill. Do none of you have any compassion whatsoever?
Here is a 19 year-old who was raised under horrific circumstances – a severely disabled mother - a father who sexually and physically abused her - who ran away from home at age 12 because of this abuse.
HOW MANY OF YOU had absolutely no family or financial resources available to you at age 12? HOW MANY OF YOU had to leave home at age 12 to escape sexual and physical abuse?
I would much rather have this family get some to help now to make themselves and their child productive members of society.
Even if you have zero compassion and can only count the bottom line – it surely makes more sense to help them now – then to take their child into foster case or to incarcerate the parents or the child at a later date.
Posted by auggie | December 15, 2004 9:35 AM
"Wow, as if the article itself was not “yucky” enough, reading the comments about this article make me seriously ill. Do none of you have any compassion whatsoever?"
Get over yourself, Auggie. I have tons of compassion -- for that baby -- and little hope. Some of us may have different senses of realism and possibilities than you do, that is all. I'd argue that a lot of "compassion" isn't, or isn't working. I used to work with "emotionally, educationally and financially disturbed and deprived" teenagers, and birth control is compassionate and smart.
Posted by Sally | December 15, 2004 1:25 PM
That's right Sally, others -- except Auggie and Grady. Fewer piercings and hair dye = money saved, more condoms, fewer babies. These people aren't retarded; they're homeless. They can figure out priorities.
Posted by bluehole.org | December 15, 2004 4:25 PM
It would seem to me that anyone who has had 5 pregnancies by age 19 (not to mention a previous child taken from her) is looking primarily for a meal ticket. My heart goes out to the real victim here, the baby.
Posted by Lily | December 16, 2004 10:27 AM
A meal ticket -- or more probably attention or love. If there's one person guaranteed not to be able to return love, it is a baby. How we teach these kids that I do not know. Will one by one they learn that the loving is required virtually entirely to be given, not received? Or will the babies just absorb the lack.
Posted by Sally | December 16, 2004 4:28 PM