Octuplet Family Financial Burden May Fall on Taxpayers

[-Cp]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,491204,00.html

LOS ANGELES — A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.

Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.

A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red. Also, the hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, for care of the premature babies, according to the Los Angeles Times. The cost has not been disclosed.

Word of the public assistance has stoked the furor over Suleman's decision to have so many children by having embryos implanted in her womb.

"It appears that, in the case of the Suleman family, raising 14 children takes not simply a village but the combined resources of the county, state and federal governments," Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote in Wednesday's paper. He called Suleman's story "grotesque."
...

[hjmick]

"Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?"

That is the question that needs answering.

The doctor who performed the procedure, implanting eight embryos, should foot the bill.

[Psychoblues]

It was reported on MSNBC tonight that Nadya Suleman has been receiving over $2,000 a month from the government for her other 6 kids.

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[sgtdmski]

And yet she was allowed to have in vitro fertilization. Is this any wonder. I still have several questions, but the first and foremost is what were the doctors thinking???

Hey here's a novel idea, instead of recieving money from the government, perhaps the government should force the doctor who performed the procedure to cover the costs. Perhaps this way we could actually get the doctors to act responsible instead of having that I am God ego and doing what they want.

Long on education and short on common sense.

dmk

[Psychoblues]

Her doc knew she wasn't married, knew she had 6 other kids, knew she wasn't employed, etc. Maybe his ignorant ass ought to be paying some considerable child support in this case?!?!?!????!?!?!?!?!?!???!


And yet she was allowed to have in vitro fertilization. Is this any wonder. I still have several questions, but the first and foremost is what were the doctors thinking???

Hey here's a novel idea, instead of recieving money from the government, perhaps the government should force the doctor who performed the procedure to cover the costs. Perhaps this way we could actually get the doctors to act responsible instead of having that I am God ego and doing what they want.

Long on education and short on common sense.



dmk

BTW, welcome to DP, sgt!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a great place for entertainment and you might mine a nugget or two of informational gold from time to time!!!!!!!!!!!! Slip into the Lounge and let me buy you a drink!!!!!!!!!! I do the bartending thing here and we always just love the newbies!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Straight up and down the hatch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[johnney]

sucks to be in Cali. truthfully i think the state shoudl step in and take some of those little bastards away. obviously she has short circuited and is not able to take care of 14 kids at one time. even with her moms help. i feel for the safety of those children they should be removed.

[-Cp]

And yet she was allowed to have in vitro fertilization. Is this any wonder. I still have several questions, but the first and foremost is what were the doctors thinking???

Hey here's a novel idea, instead of recieving money from the government, perhaps the government should force the doctor who performed the procedure to cover the costs. Perhaps this way we could actually get the doctors to act responsible instead of having that I am God ego and doing what they want.

Long on education and short on common sense.

dmk

Ya'll realize that she had to GO TO MEXICO to get this done? None of the USA doctors would touch her..

[Yurt]

Ya'll realize that she had to GO TO MEXICO to get this done? None of the USA doctors would touch her..

no, did not know that

wow, she really went for this

[DannyR]

no, did not know thatMe either. Maybe we should sue Mexico then to recover the costs. Shame that doesn't make them Mexican rather than US citizens.

[Trigg]

Ya'll realize that she had to GO TO MEXICO to get this done? None of the USA doctors would touch her..

Where did you get that info? Everything I'm hearing is it was done in Cali. they've even given the Dr's name.

[Joe Steel]

"Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?"

That is the question that needs answering.

The children have a right to life and they need money to to exercise it.

[theHawk]

All this phoney outrage is rather pointless. What do people want to do about it? Kill the babies? Let them all starve?
All we can really do is hope the kids turn out to be productive citizens and thus pay taxes.
Black women on welfare are firing out babies non-stop, where is the media outrage for the burden on taxpayers?

[LiberalNation]

why is it black women, i know plenty of white women doing the same, inherent racisim.

[hjmick]

The children have a right to life and they need money to to exercise it.

They may very have a right to life and they may very well need money, let their mother pay their way. She wanted them, she can damn well support them. I wanted kids, I supported them. The mother is single, she has fourteen kids, all by artificial means, if she couldn't support them she shouldn't have had them. Tell ya what, Joe, why don't you send her a check? Maybe drop her two or three thousand. I mean, what the hell? The children have a right to life and they need money to to exercise it.

[theHawk]

why is it black women, i know plenty of white women doing the same, inherent racisim.

Yes, plenty of whites are doing the same. So whats the solution? Cut out all welfare for everyone? Haven't heard any liberals calling for that!

[johnney]

why is it black women, i know plenty of white women doing the same, inherent racisim.

black, white, yellow... if my tax dollars are supporting someones lazy ass they need to pounding the pavement looking for work. they should also be drug tested. hey if i have to take them to get the money for them to live on, they should have to take one to get it.

[johnney]

Yes, plenty of whites are doing the same. So whats the solution? Cut out all welfare for everyone? Haven't heard any liberals calling for that!

they need to put a fucking time limit on it. why let them sit on it for years, squirtin out another generation of welfare kids who will do the same thing because thats how they wee raised?

[Kathianne]

Hello! Welfare is expanding, not contracting. I've posted such multiple times. Only one of the ways the new order intends to bring us down.

[Yurt]

what is wrong with you people, you have to help each other out, you know, spread the, uh, um, wealth around, its good for everybody.

yours truly

obama

[Joe Steel]

They may very have a right to life and they may very well need money, let their mother pay their way. She wanted them, she can damn well support them.

Not from what I've seen. She has no resources. If the State does not fund the children's care, they will die.

Do you want to be a baby killer?



I wanted kids, I supported them. The mother is single, she has fourteen kids, all by artificial means, if she couldn't support them she shouldn't have had them. Tell ya what, Joe, why don't you send her a check? Maybe drop her two or three thousand. I mean, what the hell? The children have a right to life and they need money to to exercise it.

I'm perfectly willing to spend as much on their care as they need. They are citizens and are entitled to the full benefits of citizenship. We should recognize the responsibility the community has to its members, especially the helpless, and do everything possible to meet the need.

This may call for a tax increase.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm perfectly willing to spend as much on their care as they need.

that's a relief.....for a minute there I thought you wanted US to do it.....

[Joe Steel]

that's a relief.....for a minute there I thought you wanted US to do it.....

If by "US" you mean the community, I do.

As I said, the community has a responsibility to its members.

[PostmodernProphet]

oh, so now you're gonna renege on your offer?....cheapskate!.....typical liberal, can't keep a promise.....and here I was filled with all this hope spilled over from the last campaign....

so tell me this, Joe.....we take over the care of these kids, do you think we have a responsibility to take them away from the mother?.....obviously she does not have their well being at heart, nor that of her previous six kids.....and I suspect she has serious emotional problems.....it would not be good to let them grow up under the influence of someone with emotional problems.......shouldn't we terminate that relationship and place them for care with responsible foster parents?.....

[Joe Steel]

oh, so now you're gonna renege on your offer?....cheapskate!.....typical liberal, can't keep a promise.....and here I was filled with all this hope spilled over from the last campaign....[/quote[

I'm not reneging on any offer. I remain willing to spend as much of the community's resources as is necessary to care for the children. Further, I'd support whatever tax increases were necessary to do it.

[QUOTE=PostmodernProphet;349137]so tell me this, Joe.....we take over the care of these kids, do you think we have a responsibility to take them away from the mother?.....obviously she does not have their well being at heart, nor that of her previous six kids.....and I suspect she has serious emotional problems.....it would not be good to let them grow up under the influence of someone with emotional problems.......shouldn't we terminate that relationship and place them for care with responsible foster parents?.....

I'd have no problem with assuming control if that proved necessary.

[Missileman]

[QUOTE=Joe Steel;349148
I'm not reneging on any offer. I remain willing to spend as much of the community's resources as is necessary to care for the children. Further, I'd support whatever tax increases were necessary to do it.[/QUOTE]

LOL...always willing to spend someone else's money aren't you, douchebag. How much of your labor winds up as "community resource"?

[Trigg]

ANOTHER mother this one in her late 40's with NO insurance. How are these women affording IVF with no insurance and crappy jobs?????????????? This Dr needs to loose his license or at least be financially responsible for the kids he's helping to create. Dip shit

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/medicine/la-me-octuplets13-2009feb13,0,457763.story


The woman in the latest case arrived recently at Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles for unspecified treatment but was transferred last week to County-USC Medical Center because she lacks insurance. Doctors placed her on bed rest until the birth of the babies, which could be two or three months from now.

But in this case, the woman was using embryos made from eggs donated by a woman in her late 20s -- which fertility specialists said increased the possibility of a multiple birth.[/QUOTE[QUOTE]]"I do think it is concerning, and dangerous, especially to the mother. She is close to 50. When women get to be that age, our fear is the cardiovascular complications, such as stroke or heart attack. That's how serious this is," said Dr. John Jain, a fertility specialist with knowledge of the case.

Not only is this woman going to incure close to a million in medical debt she is also putting her life in danger by tring to have this many children when she is 49 yrs old.

[Trigg]

If by "US" you mean the community, I do.

As I said, the community has a responsibility to its members.

It's members also have a responsibility to their community. People should not be allowed to bankrupt the entire community with no repercussions. Personal responsibility has to play a part in this argument.

If 80% of the population just decided one day to stop working, have loads of kids and stay home watching TV, what would you say?? Would you still expect the last 20% to suck it up and shell out money for the lazy bums???????

[actsnoblemartin]

:clap: :clap: :clap:


It's members also have a responsibility to their community. People should not be allowed to bankrupt the entire community with no repercussions. Personal responsibility has to play a part in this argument.

If 80% of the population just decided one day to stop working, have loads of kids and stay home watching TV, what would you say?? Would you still expect the last 20% to suck it up and shell out money for the lazy bums???????

[Joe Steel]

It's members also have a responsibility to their community. People should not be allowed to bankrupt the entire community with no repercussions. Personal responsibility has to play a part in this argument.

Perhaps, but, at this point, that's irrelevant. Either the community supports the children or lets them suffer and maybe die.

What's it going to be?


If 80% of the population just decided one day to stop working, have loads of kids and stay home watching TV, what would you say?? Would you still expect the last 20% to suck it up and shell out money for the lazy bums???????

No. I'd tell the kids to go outside and pick their supper from the cheeseburger tree. Cheeseburger trees are as likely as 80% of the population quitting their jobs.

[PostmodernProphet]

It's members also have a responsibility to their community. People should not be allowed to bankrupt the entire community with no repercussions.

true enough, you should be at least a Congressman before you are allowed to do that....

[jimnyc]

Not from what I've seen. She has no resources. If the State does not fund the children's care, they will die.

Do you want to be a baby killer?

She should have went over her resources BEFORE she ELECTED to have so many more babies. If she did this without any way of taking care of these children, they should be removed as she needs mental help. Like you do for believing WE should all fund her stupidity.

[Joe Steel]

She should have went over her resources BEFORE she ELECTED to have so many more babies. If she did this without any way of taking care of these children, they should be removed as she needs mental help. Like you do for believing WE should all fund her stupidity.

Wrong again.

I believe YOU should fund your morality. If you respect life, you have to give the kids a chance.

[PostmodernProphet]

She should have went over her resources BEFORE she ELECTED to have so many more babies.

it puzzles me how she could afford to have the procedure done, certainly it was expensive....

[jimnyc]

Wrong again.

I believe YOU should fund your morality. If you respect life, you have to give the kids a chance.

Morality is what this woman should have been thinking of, not how she could increase her income off the backs of others. I DO think the kids deserve a chance, just not from someone who can't do so, not from someone who has the kids when she can't even afford the first 6 she already had!

Having an unexpected baby or two is one thing, and can be a blessing, but purposely having so many babies when you know you can't afford to give them a decent life is just plain stupid, and quite possibly a mental issue. Lock her up like a dog and find suitable parents for the children.

[Missileman]

Wrong again.

I believe YOU should fund your morality. If you respect life, you have to give the kids a chance.

Why won't you answer the question?

How much of your labor winds up as "community resource"?

[Joe Steel]

Morality is what this woman should have been thinking of, not how she could increase her income off the backs of others. I DO think the kids deserve a chance, just not from someone who can't do so, not from someone who has the kids when she can't even afford the first 6 she already had!

Having an unexpected baby or two is one thing, and can be a blessing, but purposely having so many babies when you know you can't afford to give them a decent life is just plain stupid, and quite possibly a mental issue. Lock her up like a dog and find suitable parents for the children.

Fine. You've fixed the blame.

Now, are you going to pay for the kids or are you going to let them die?

[PostmodernProphet]

Fine. You've fixed the blame.

Now, are you going to pay for the kids or are you going to let them die?

????......Joe, there was never any question we were going to pay for the kids.....the only thing that's at issue is whether we are pissed off about it......

[Joe Steel]

????......Joe, there was never any question we were going to pay for the kids.....

Maybe the law would have acted to ensure the kids' survival but the sentiment I've seen made me uncertain the average wingnut would have. In fact, most wingnuts have applauded "welfare reform" which destroys the lives of the poor and very well may have killed some. The situation is not that much different. The octuplets have had the good fortune to have had a newsworthy birth. Most many poor kids just as deserving haven't been so lucky. They were born one-at-a-time to normal women. What about them?

[manu1959]

who paid for all the plastic surgeries she has had to look like angelina jolie......

[PostmodernProphet]

In fact, most wingnuts have applauded "welfare reform" which destroys the lives of the poor and very well may have killed some.

welfare reform fixed that part of welfare which DID destroy lives......the lifetime dependency it created.....

[Joe Steel]

welfare reform fixed that part of welfare which DID destroy lives......the lifetime dependency it created.....

I doubt welfare creates any significant dependency; maybe a little. More than likely, that idea is a rightwing myth.

[Nukeman]

I doubt welfare creates any significant dependency; maybe a little. More than likely, that idea is a rightwing myth.
You are soo wrong on this it is laughable. Welfare does indeed create dependency, due primarliy to how the funds are dispersed. YOU have to be practicly destitute before any funds are given to you. You have to have NO assests and that in and of its self make you "DEPENDENT UPON THE GOV'T FOR YOUR NEEDS".


Here is a nice study that you may find interesting..


http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-1.html




Summary

Welfare is both a consequence and a cause of several conditions best described as social pathologies. These conditions include dependency, poverty, out-of-wedlock births, nonemployment, abortion, and violent crime. The basic hypothesis of this study is that welfare dependency and the other pathologies are jointly determined and are derivative of a common set of other conditions.

Differences in the levels of these conditions among the states provide a basis for estimating the specific effects of welfare benefits, the relations among the social pathologies, and the extent to which the pathologies are based on a common set of root causes.

Analysis of the state data for 1992 yields the following estimates of the effects of an increase in Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits by 1 percent of the average personal income in the state: the number of AFDC recipients would increase by about 3 percent; the number of people in poverty would increase by about 0.8 percent; the number of births to single mothers would increase by about 2.1 percent; the number of adults who are not employed would increase by about 0.5 percent; the number of abortions would increase by about 1.2 percent; and the violent crime rate would increase by about 1.1 percent.

The social pathologies associated with the current welfare system no longer seem acceptable, not so much because of their fiscal costs but because of their malign effects. An important question addressed in this study is the extent to which these pathologies are dependent on conditions that could be changed by government policy.



Social Pathologies

For this study, the six conditions are described as social pathologies, not because they are necessarily illegal or immoral in an individual case but because the level of these conditions is broadly considered as undesirable. There is less consensus, however, about the relative undesirability of these conditions. An increase in welfare dependency, for example. may be considered desirable if it reduces one or more of the other conditions. As it turns out, however, an increase in AFDC benefits increases all of the six pathologies that are the focus of this study.

Welfare Dependency

In 1992, 5.4 percent of the national population were dependent on cash benefits from AFDC, with a range from 2.0 percent in Idaho to 10.8 percent in the District of Columbia. This program is jointly financed by the federal and state governments and is administered by the states subject to numerous federal guidelines. All AFDC recipients are also eligible for food stamps and medicaid, and many also receive benefits from special food programs, utility assistance, and housing assistance.

An additional 2.6 percent of the population receive cash benefits from other federal and state programs, for a total of 8 percent who are dependent on cash benefits. A broader 9.9 percent of the population receive food stamps, and 11.9 percent are covered by medicaid. A more complex study would be necessary to estimate the causes and consequences of the broader set of means-tested programs. For this study, the level of welfare dependency is defined as the percent of the population that receive cash benefits from the AFDC program.

Poverty

A total of 14.5 percent of the population have money income below the official poverty line, with a range from 7.6 percent in Delaware to 24.5 percent in Mississippi. The national poverty rate is now about the same as when the War on Poverty was instituted 30 years ago, despite the expenditure of over $5 trillion (at 1993 prices) for means-tested public assistance programs in the intervening years and a 75 percent increase in average real income. More means-tested benefits may or may not have contributed to the incidence of poverty but they have clearly not reduced it.

Any definition of poverty, of course, is somewhat arbitrary, depending on what types of income are included. The government estimates national poverty rates for 15 different aggregations of income, taxes, and transfers, with a range from 10.4 percent based on all after-tax income and transfers to a high of 22.6 percent based only on pre-tax money income. For this study, the level of poverty is defined as the percent of the population with pre-tax money income and cash transfers below the official poverty line, the only such data available by state.

Out-of-Wedlock Births

Out-of-Wedlock births are the most rapidly increasing social pathology. On a national basis (in 1991), 29.2 percent of births were to single mothers, with a range from 14.3 percent in Utah to 65.9 percent in the District of Columbia. Since 1960, the illegitimacy rate has increased from 2.3 percent to 22 percent for whites and from 21.4 percent to 68 percent for blacks. A substantial part of the current generation of inner city young people has grown up without a father, a contributor to the increase in violent crime and the decline in school performance as well as to some of the pathologies addressed in this study.


Wanted to add the BEST quote from the whole study...



A blind compassion may be admirable but a knowledgeable compassion is twice blest.

[jimnyc]

Fine. You've fixed the blame.

Now, are you going to pay for the kids or are you going to let them die?

They should be put up for adoption. There are waiting lists for people who would love to adopt and care for a child. The answer certainly isn't to reward the twit who had the kids by paying for her mistakes, the answer is to lookout for the welfare of the children. She is an unfit parent.

If she could afford to have so many children, God bless her. But when she's milking taxpayers dollars for the first six and then has EIGHT more, she doesn't deserve another dime.

[Joe Steel]

They should be put up for adoption. There are waiting lists for people who would love to adopt and care for a child. The answer certainly isn't to reward the twit who had the kids by paying for her mistakes, the answer is to lookout for the welfare of the children. She is an unfit parent.

If she could afford to have so many children, God bless her. But when she's milking taxpayers dollars for the first six and then has EIGHT more, she doesn't deserve another dime.

I agree. The State is responsible for the welfare of each citizen, especially the young and helpless. Adoption probably is the best solution to this problem.

[Nukeman]

I agree. The State is responsible for the welfare of each citizen, especially the young and helpless. Adoption probably is the best solution to this problem.
So Joe would that be each and every citizen independently as in "We The People". Are you saying that each and everyone is a singlular citizen???

[My Winter Storm]

Since it is the woman who chooses to give birth, she should choose to have children only when she can afford them, not to satisfy her desire to be the next Angelina Jolie.

[Joe Steel]

So Joe would that be each and every citizen independently as in "We The People". Are you saying that each and everyone is a singlular citizen???

The community would be responsible for each citizen.

What's your point?

[Nukeman]

The community would be responsible for each citizen.

What's your point?
What contitutes the "community" in your book is that the immediate community such as town, or township or is it the greater community like county, state, or federal..

[Joe Steel]

What contitutes the "community" in your book is that the immediate community such as town, or township or is it the greater community like county, state, or federal..

That depends in part on context. However, generally speaking, I mean larger rather than smaller, usually the national community.

[Nukeman]

That depends in part on context. However, generally speaking, I mean larger rather than smaller, usually the national community.

So what your saying is that EVERY individual has rights to exist under the Federal or national community. This is quite contrary to your usual beliefs!!!

You usualy state that the community as a whole should take precedence over any single individual (or at least their rights), in fact you have gone on to state the individual really has no rights since the greater communtiy is what actually counts.


Hmmmmmmm........... Rather perplexing!!!!!!!!!! Nice double standard by the way

[Abbey Marie]

Joe thinks it's ok to take scissors to the head of each of these kids just before birth and suck their brains out, but once they are born, he cares so much about them. He really cares.

[MtnBiker]

Joe thinks it's ok to take scissors to the head of each of these kids just before birth and suck their brains out, but once they are born, he cares so much about them. He really cares.

He doesn't care about the kids, he cares about the government forcing other people financial burden to provide for those kids (and the adminstrative costs of the government to do so).

[Abbey Marie]

He doesn't care about the kids, he cares about the government forcing other people financial burden to provide for those kids (and the adminstrative costs of the government to do so).

Yup. I was being sarcastic. :beer:

[Joe Steel]

So what your saying is that EVERY individual has rights to exist under the Federal or national community. This is quite contrary to your usual beliefs!!!

Where did I say that?


You usualy state that the community as a whole should take precedence over any single individual (or at least their rights), in fact you have gone on to state the individual really has no rights since the greater communtiy is what actually counts.

I've never said "the individual really has no rights."

[Joe Steel]

Joe thinks it's ok to take scissors to the head of each of these kids just before birth and suck their brains out, but once they are born, he cares so much about them. He really cares.

I oppose abortion at almost any stage for almost any reason.

I could even be convinced to outlaw the abortion of a fetus conceived by rape if compassionate care can be provided to the woman.

[Abbey Marie]

I oppose abortion at almost any stage for almost any reason.

I could even be convinced to outlaw the abortion of a fetus conceived by rape if compassionate care can be provided to the woman.

I thought you were the guy who supported an aborted baby born alive being tossed in the trash.
Have I mixed you up with someone else? :confused:

[Joe Steel]

I thought you were the guy who supported an aborted baby born alive being tossed in the trash.
Have I mixed you up with someone else? :confused:

I recall something about Obama and a baby left to die in a broom closet but I don't recall having commented on it and I can't imagine ever having supported such a barbarous act. In fact, I know I haven't.

[Nukeman]

Where did I say that?



I've never said "the individual really has no rights."
You have consistantly argued in other threads that the individual does not have rights as being soveriegn. In fact here is a direct quote from you.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=20087&page=12

You're confused. Individuals (each person) are not sovereign

I know that this a different topic but you can not have it both ways either EVERYONE has individual rights or we don't, so which is it????

here is another one



In fact, they do. They clearly show the use of the term "the People" as meaning the collective sovereign.
so once again you say individuals DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS only collectively as a group....

[Joe Steel]

You have consistantly argued in other threads that the individual does not have rights as being soveriegn. In fact here is a direct quote from you.

Individuals are not sovereign. That doesn't mean they don't have rights.

Apparently, you don't know the definition of "sovereign." You should look-up the word.

[Nukeman]

Individuals are not sovereign. That doesn't mean they don't have rights.

Apparently, you don't know the definition of "sovereign." You should look-up the word.You have repeatedly argued against the indivduals rights on so many other threads yet we are supposed to believe that you have the "individual" rights of these babies in their best interest???

Give me a break Joe, You constantly put community over individual!!!!! Why the change now????


Just to add, lets look at the word "Sovereign" shall we...




Main Entry: 2sovereign
Variant(s): also sovran
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English soverain, from Anglo-French soverein, from Vulgar Latin *superanus, from Latin super over, above — more at over
Date: 14th century
1 a: superlative in quality : excellent b: of the most exalted kind : supreme <sovereign virtue> c: having generalized curative powers <a sovereign remedy> d: of an unqualified nature : unmitigated <sovereign contempt> e: having undisputed ascendancy : paramount
2 a: possessed of supreme power <a sovereign ruler> b: unlimited in extent : absolute c: enjoying autonomy : independent <sovereign states>
3: relating to, characteristic of, or befitting a sovereign
synonyms see free
— sov·er·eign·ly adverb

now lets look at ther independent




Main Entry: 1in·de·pen·dent
Pronunciation: \ˌin-də-ˈpen-dənt\
Function: adjective
Date: 1611
1: not dependent: as a (1): not subject to control by others : self-governing (2): not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore> b (1): not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2): not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3): not bound by or committed to a political party c (1): not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) <independent of her parents> (2): being enough to free one from the necessity of working for a living <a person of independent means> d: showing a desire for freedom <an independent manner> e (1): not determined by or capable of being deduced or derived from or expressed in terms of members (as axioms or equations) of the set under consideration ; especially : having linear independence <an independent set of vectors> (2): having the property that the joint probability (as of events or samples) or the joint probability density function (as of random variables) equals the product of the probabilities or probability density functions of separate occurrence
2capitalized : of or relating to the Independents
3 a: main 5 <an independent clause> b: neither deducible from nor incompatible with another statement <independent postulates>
synonyms see free
— in·de·pen·dent·ly adverb

[Joe Steel]

You have repeatedly argued against the indivduals rights on so many other threads yet we are supposed to believe that you have the "individual" rights of these babies in their best interest???

Give me a break Joe, You constantly put community over individual!!!!! Why the change now????

My position really isn't so strange. Much of the community oppose abortion and would impose their will on those seeking it. I join with the opponents. In other words, I regard the interests of that portion of the community who oppose abortion to be more worthy of protection than those who support abortion. I'm joining with a large part of the community to deny a right of abortion.