drink driving

mother of 9 gets in a car with a drunk driver and ends up on some old road trip. FFS. some people have no sense.

The more I read, the more I think this woman was extremely lucky to live. Touched by His Noodlyness, for sure.

rofl did anybody else see the tv3 news coverage of this story...they were asking questions like and how did she feel...what did she do to pass the time...i could barely control myself i was laughing so hard...

I mean what was she thinking? she had nine children. FFS.

If she has nine children, what does this imply about her intelligence?

*sighs* There goes another wasted tax payer dollar.

On what exactly? The children? The woman? The emergency services?

The whole lot.

When one of them invents a cancer cure, you'll be looking pretty foolish!

Your point is completely offset by the chance that one of them will become the next world dictator.

:( pwned

Thank you! I always hate it when people make that stupid 'but they might have been the next Jesus' argument.

I'm surpised I had to bring up the counter-argument. To me it's like an age old concept that everyone should know about both sides of it. I actually suspect most people say it even though they know of the counter-argument, but just try and get away with it anyway.

You dudes really have my number...

What if both possibilities are fulfilled in the one person? Where would that leave us?

I really should have said "if" instead of "when" in the original post.

In the same place that we started. The two possibilities cancel each other out, so we should ignore them for comparative purposes.

Okay. Point taken. Let me start again on this one.

Do you not think that it was worth our tax dollars to save the life of a woman who is the mother of nine children? Do you believe that single mothers with nine children are by definition a drain on the state, and are not producing anything of future value? What about her childrens' potential to contribute to the economy and society of New Zealand? The article states that she is a cleaner, but whether she's on the dole or not isn't stated. Is this what you mean by a waste of taxpayer money?

Drink driving is a scourge on the nation, and Ada Makiri was utterly stupid to ride with a drunk driver, but writing her and her family off as a 'wasted taxpayer dollar' seems pretty damn cruel and insensitive.

They won't contribute much unless they get a decent education, which lets face it, ain't going to happen, with or without government help.

This lady should have never had, IMHO, 9 children. What right does she have to bring a child into this world that she cannot support? She is effectively sentencing them to death by poverty even before they were born.

Do you claim to know this womans history? Do you know if she was in a stable relationship at the time of her childrens conception? Do you know anything about her life other than what was in the paper and the news.

How do you know they wont get a decent education? or lead decent worthwhile lives? how is it your place to decide who should and shouldnt breed?

In your opinion she shouldnt have had nine children but who is to say your opinion should be the one that is correct? You have your beliefs and although they are arrogant they are yours and no one can take them from you but please dont consider you have the necessary information or ability to make blanket decisions about who will and wont contribute to society.

What right does she have to bring a child into this world that she cannot support? Again you are making an assumption that she cannot support her children... Does not being able to purchase a playstation an xbox or the latest electrical gadgets dictate an inability to support?

"She is effectively sentencing them to death by poverty even before they were born" Define poverty? poverty is one of those things that each person has a different perception of. do the very rich consider themselves poor when they can no longer afford cavier?
I put it to you that regardless of where her income comes from if that family has love, food and a roof over their head then they are a lot richer than MANY New Zealand families. I also put it to you that poverty is character building. the "have nots" have to strive to achieve and therefore become better people for it as opposed to the haves who can sit on their arses and contribute very little and still be considered somehow better for society??!!

My mother was one of ten children. A LARGE FAMILY. you would consider their lifestyle to have been one of poverty, and yes as my grandfather was a pig father and my grandmother was a part time teacher they were often without money but none of those 10 children consider they were sentenced to a lousy life

^^ Hear Hear!

When you have so many children that you require state funds to support them (other than things everyone gets anyway like public education), maybe it's time to close your legs.

Using the same logic... stop taking your student allowance (state funding) and get a fucking job :)

Although I never took a student allowance, what I meant by 'state funds' was benefits paid to brood mares that have kids they can't afford.

State Funds are state funds Oobey. And thus why you pay tax... perhaps you voted National?

Way to completely miss the point there.

well by that logic oob ever single parent of a child who is at uni drawing a student loan and student allowance has popped out a child they cant afford.

and what about all those cripples... smother those less physically able at birth?

Oh yea and what about all those people in prisons costing the taxpayer money... hang them?

Oh and the unemployed?... dope smoking bums the lot of them send them to tonga to harvest coconuts?

Just because a person has a lot of children doesnt mean they are going to be a welfare "bludger"... this woman is a cleaner... she may have her income supplimented by WINZ but she is out there doing what she can.

AS A WORKING MOTHER i know that employment opportunities are reduced due to sick kids, holiday leave etc but not all families have two parents so the welfare system is there to provide assistance when needed.

The welfare system is less than perfect. i am the first to agree to that but stop with the single mum bashing.

Walk a day in her shoes and you will finally see your logic is fucked up if you think anyone in their right mind would pop out children to get on the benefit. Raising children is the hardest job ANYONE could do. You dont get a boss standing behind you telling you what a great job youre doing, you dont get anyone giving you a payrise for being a good mum or dad. but heaven forbid you need a little help from the state and you DO get treated like something on the bottom of a shoe, you do get slagged off for being a bludger, and you do get treated like a second rate citizen.

Ok I tried to clarify what I meant earlier but apparently none of you get it, so here's what I meant rewritten:

When you have so many children that you require the DPB to support them, maybe it's time to close your legs.

ok so its only the DPB drawing parent who have had too many kids? not the ones who draw on other state funding to support those kids?

Yes, that is where I personally draw the line. I also find it unfortunate when parents are unable to assist their children paying for tertiary education, but that's between them and has nothing to do with me.

Don't be absurd. The least we can do is give them as painless a death as possible, a lethal injection perhaps. :oob:

well while you are slagging of single mums oob... think on this..
For every child that a woman on the DPB has, there is a father who isnt providing for them either.

oh and anytime you hear some poor guy compaining about having to pay a pittance to some " bitch" for childsupport. Point out to him he could:
a) raise the child (quickest way to discover his contribution is nothing compared to the cost of raising a child and what a tiresome thankless bloody job it is)
or b ) keep his bits in his pants.

Deadbeat dads rate worse than brood mares on 'the oobs list of things which suck'.

That could be taken in so many ways...

*smirks*

I didn't see in the original article that she was on the DPB. Some of her children look old enough in the picture to be supporting themselves.

I refuse to admit that going on the DPB instead of working is intrinsically wrong. People who have children have to support themselves somehow, as best they can. If I was a single mother with children, and the DPB offered me better income to care for those children than the best job I could realistically get while caring for them, I'd go for the DPB.

As for claiming that the children won't ever get a good enough education to make a positive difference to society - I guess the state could provide free education, or perhaps this woman's more talented children might get financial assistance or scholarships to get in there. But that would be giving unfair preferential treatment to Maori, wouldn't it? Best write them off as failures from birth.

A lot of assumptions are being made. I can see what you are trying to say oob, but really who are you to say who can and can't have children? You know little about this women.

I just took umbrage at the blanket statement that the whole situation - woman, children, and emergency services - constitutes "another wasted taxpayer dollar".

I just think what she did was irresponsible. Thats why I posted it.

Yeah, I agree. It was mrt's later posts I disagreed with.

I was getting more into the general case of women who have more children when they shouldn't, rather than this specific case. However, the fact that she's stupid enough to get into a car with a drunk driver, with her kids, means I wouldn't be surprised if she is such a woman.

Since I'm paying part of the cost for people who have a ridiculous amount of children without the corresponding income, I have a right to at least criticize such people. I'm not as greedy as you might think, and I don't mind my money being used to help people, but I really don't like paying for other peoples stupidity.

Well sometimes people dont choose to have children or not. Also who has the right to say you can or cant have children because of your income.

These days all it requires is the barest effort to not have children.

That's the problem, everyone seems to think having children by the dozen is their 'right'. The day that right becomes too much for the country to bear is the day that right disappears. I hope to live to see the day that the human lifespan is extended to the point where abortions become mandatory after x amount of children (due to the large population), then I'll finally have affordable fuel for my foetusmobile.

Let me clarify what I was saying. After reviewing my post, I did not make it clear that:

I do not mind if a person has lots of children and can support them.

I do not mind if a person has lots of children and cannot support them.

I do mind if a person has lots of children, cannot support them, and so survives, in part or in whole, with government assistance (In particular, benefits from WINZ and housing assistance).

The moment they ask for government assistance, I feel that the government should be not provide incentives for people who themselves undertook actions (or inactions) that resulted in them having a family that they cannot support.

By actions, I mean having sex and in particular sex without contraception. I also mean having sex without contraception knowing that you already have several children and would not be able to support another child without government assistance.

By inactions, I mean becoming pregnant knowing that post birth government assistance would be required because the parent(s) are unable to support the additional child otherwise. I also mean not taking an appropriate step such as abortion.

The government, in my opinion, should not be there to fund consequences resulting from peoples religious beliefs, such as not using contraception and not having an abortion.

If you don't use contraception/don't use abortion on the grounds of religious beliefs, and you end up being unable to support your child and ask for government assistance, then the government should not feel obliged to help you live out your religion.

The government should also not feel obliged to assist you if you decide to bring up children in a solo-parent environment when both parents are still alive. In this case, it should be up to the parents to foot the bill (even if the 'bum of a father' doesn't want to). If the parents, together, cannot provide funds sufficient to avoid asking for government assistance, then they should have thought about that before having the baby.

Now, going through some of the posts.

You inspired me to do some checking, and I came up with this: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3438165a1861,00.html -- highlights:

- "Makiri's life of struggle from a street kid to teenage alcoholic to gang associate helped prepare her for what would become the biggest challenge of her life. "
- "Kicked out of home at 14, she hit the streets of Wellington and had frequent brushes with the law. She learned how to find food and make fires while living rough. "
- "Makiri had her first child, Tasha, at 16. Her mother took custody of the child as Makiri was still running wild. She had her first brush with tragedy in 1982 when her first son, Paul, died of cot death at nine months. "I went haywire after that I turned to alcohol, I was an alcoholic."
- "Makiri says it was not until the mid-1990s that she decided she had better settle down and become a mother to her six children and three adopted children. She turned her life around, getting work at a shopping centre food court, a rest home, and most recently as a cleaner for Rembrandt clothing. "

So, we can see, at the time of conception of her first child, she was either 15/16. This was during her "Teenage Alcoholic" years. I question the stability of her relationship at that time. I also question her competence as a mother at 16 years of age, given she was a gang member/alcoholic at the time.

So, given that there are only 8 children alive (1 died early on), that's still 8 children for her to support. Exclude the 3 adopted (Which is another story entirely. If you have to give your children up for adoption then I seriously question why you had the child in the first place, and suspect religious beliefs got in the way). That leaves you with 5 natural, surviving children, that this woman had.

Once again, I have no problem with her having children, however I don't believe that the state should pay to support them (this is of course assuming that she gets state assistance).

That's exactly what I fucking did. 'Course I couldn't qualify for a student allowance either.

Then why on earth did this women pop out 6? Surely her logic must be fucked up, or her religion prevented her from using contraception/abortion.

If the father is able to support the child, then he should be legally obglied to, and in a proper amount rather than a pittance.

If he couldn't, then I cannot understand why they would bring the child into this world. If they believed that they could support the child, that's fine, but if they couldn't and then started to ask for government funding, you have to ask the question about why they didn't use contraception/abortion, and religious beliefs shouldn't be an acceptable excuse to give them tax funded state assistance.

They have that right, they just don't have the right to nagg the government because they knew beforehand that they wouldn't be able to support the children.

So far I've ignored the situation where the people could afford the children, successfully did so, and then later found themselves in financial strife. In this case, it would be acceptable to provide state assistance (assuming it was shown that their previous financial security wasn't just temporary).