Hear David Boze every weekday at 6am on 770 KTTH
 David Boze
Get David's Books
The Little Red Book of Obamunism: Quotations from The One
It's the must-have election resource of 2012! It's a pocket-sized collection that reveals not just what the president says, but what he means!
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample

Kumar Joe, The Singing Crow
Kumar Joe, the Singing Crow is the tale of a little crow who was born with a heart for music, but not a voice for it.
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample



At what point do we say, "No kids for you!"?

December 5, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

Reading this story in the Everett Herald about the death of a 19 month old girl abandoned (with her sibling) in a car due to a neglectful mom who "had a history of neglectful treatment. Four other children were removed from her care in the past, according to the state records" I found myself wondering at what point do we (and/or tribal governments), decide that an individual should NEVER be allowed to have kids. Is 4 chances not enough? These children were left alone for days, covered in feces, lice, and filth--alone--to rot like garbage left in a can.

I hope one of the debates opened in the aftermath of this is at what point can a history of an individual allow the state to pre-determine they are unfit to be a parent.

More David Boze

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (36)


  • Add A Comment

  • Forrest wrote...
    In order for the mother to collect welfare from the state...
    December 5, 2012 1:31 pm
    She should be forced to be on Norplant and have to name the father. If the father refuses to pay child support, he should have a forced vasectomy.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BikeNazi wrote...
    Oh I don't know
    December 5, 2012 1:37 pm
    Maybe fund Planned Parenthood and other women's health services better? Sometimes a handful of free condoms or a cheap abortion are what's needed.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    OKAY, David. I'll say it
    December 5, 2012 1:57 pm
    No kids for YOU.

    At least until you stop postings about snakes eating goats.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Snout wrote...
    Government assistance should have strings attached.
    December 5, 2012 3:06 pm
    If you are taking money from someone else to survive you are essentially a child. Children need rules and should want to step out on their own and take care of themselves so they can live how they wish. Unfortunately we have made poverty comfortable. Obama removed the work requirement for welfare and food stamps. Heck, these days they advertise to get people ON food stamps. You don't have the shame of forking over paper stamps any more. You get a convenient debit card and you can buy whatever you want. If you get cash benefits you can use your to buy anything you want. It's like you're pretending to be an adult without the responsibility. And they are building really nice housing areas for these people. Look at the Salishan development on Portland Ave in Tacoma. Those homes are better than a lot of places that I paid to live in. There is no incentive to find work and be your own person. Why? You are fed well, you have a cell phone, a TV, a car, a decent place to live? You're essentially living in your taxpayers' basement hollering for meatloaf. And we keep bringing it to you. sigh.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • sportsguru wrote...
    Snout
    December 5, 2012 5:35 pm

    lol, that was pretty good. I agree with you. I think that there should be a cap on benefits similar to unemployment. 24 months and an additional 12 months only to be used in an emergency and you have to basically re apply in order to get the emergency extension and then you are DONE, no more benefits. You can re apply only after obtaining gainful employment and paying back into the system for 2 year.

    You can keep your housing for 12 months after employment to make sure you have enough saved to go out on your own, you get half of your food stamps for six months after employment and then the cord gets cut.

    I remember as a kid moving to California from Louisiana in the early 70's and my parents being on welfare for 6 months, my parents hated it and back then you were stigmatized if you were on public assistance and my father couldn't wait to remove our family from the public dole and feel like a man again.

    We have gone from being stigmatized to a way of life and that is just wrong.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Minor corrrection, Snout
    December 6, 2012 7:47 am
    You wrote: Obama removed the work requirement for welfare and food stamps.

    I know that's the way the RW talk shows like to spin it, but in reality Obama removed the *federal* work requirement *only in cases where the states* had equally strict or stricter requirements.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    Ah to be a conservative for just one day. I wonder
    December 5, 2012 10:02 pm
    what it feels like to use the tragic death of a toddler to promote negative stereotypes of low-income women as dependent, irresponsible, prone to addictions and inadequate mothers? Just to make sure I have it straight, middle and upper class women should have children and stay at home to raise them, but single, low income women should limit their childbearing and should work outside their home to support their children.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Forrest wrote...
    @ gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood
    December 6, 2012 5:21 am
    I'm as progressive as they come but I don't believe you should have children before you can support them.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    There is a difference between believing you shouldn't have
    December 6, 2012 5:29 am
    children before you can support them and sterilizing poor women so that they can't. It's fascist and disproportionately affects the lower class. The right believes in a fantasy world that doesn't involve a lower income class (janitors, housekeepers, gardeners). For anybody to suggest they shouldn't have children is backwards and has already been tried. Eugenics is part of an ugly past that is best left forgotten.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • rational wrote...
    gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood
    December 6, 2012 6:49 am
    There is a difference between believing you shouldn't have children before you can support them and sterilizing poor women so that they can't. It's fascist and disproportionately affects the lower class.

    It's ironic then, that you would want to promote an organization established to sterilize poor and black women and was the model for the nazi eugenics philosophy.

    “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • gaymarriedchristianfromhollywood wrote...
    I don't support the Democratic party of the 1930s
    December 6, 2012 7:35 am
    anymore than I support the Whig Part of the 1830s. Nice try. But I agree with you on American eugenics being the model for the Nazis. It was a shameful time.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Substatute "FIrearms" for "Children"
    December 6, 2012 7:40 am
    ...and you will all of a sudden see the right wing screaming about their constitutional rights and how you cannot do anything.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • clevesside wrote...
    When it's all about you, as proven daily.........
    December 9, 2012 10:41 am
    ....under any circumstances, why let kids get in the way? It would take an epiphany to change this thinking, but it seldom occurs. There are good and bad parents, often for the wrong reasons. Consider it, well, an abstract concept today.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }