Aamir Liaquat Hussian 'baby scandal'

"If any family cannot afford to bring up their newborn baby due to poverty or illness then instead of killing them, they should hand over the baby to Aamir".

http://www.aamirliaquat.com/

Is he using babies as prizes or handing over babies to new adoptive parents on TV?

 

If any family cannot afford to bring up their newborn baby due to poverty or illness then instead of killing them they should stop screwing like rabbits.

I cannot be your goal in life to have 15 kids.

 

India 2.55 children born (2013 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2127.html

 

Yup .... but also

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/31/world/asia/india-record-family

 

Is he killing children?

 

That cracked me up! :rofl:

Seriously though .... There are so many organizations (apart from that shady guy you posted) that want to help with al these poor children and their mothers but nobody seems to want to deal with population growth really.

 

I'm asking is he shady, and why is he shady in your opinion.

It's another debate entirely regarding Indias population growth. You must know it's a lot more complicated than: they should stop screwing like rabbits.

 

Shady to me. This is showbiz and exploitation.

It's related though I'd say. And yes, everything is more complicated than a few posts on a forum. But then you probably knew that too.

 

In what way is it 'shady'?

Ok, yes. I just wanted to focus on a particular point rather than setting up a UN forum on global change...

 

Hey, free kid giveaways on prime time tv what's not to love!

Why should that be shady right? It couldn't possibly be some kind of publicity stunt to boost the ratings? No way.

This guy has controversy written all over himself.

 

Is he giving the children away, though? or handing them over to pre-vetted parents?

How has his rating changed?

I think the controversy is that 'we' would not be so crass. I do see it as crass. But well meaning at the same time.

A 'prize' denotes a winning of a game. I have not heard parents were vying for a prize and a winner won a prize - in this case a child.
It just seems to be handing over a child that has been placed with a family ... but on TV.

 

We don't know. But why does that even matter? It's a publicity stunt.

Again why does that matter? If the rates climb it doesn't prove I'm right and if they go down it doesn't prove I'm wrong.

It's not about being crass in my opinion, it's about integrity. You should be able to do something good without putting it on national television.

He denies that they were prizes. But in the end it's all the same.

He's just some TV host doing his thing. He ain't Mother Theresa.

 

So you say. Proof.

Eh?

Nothing is done with out publicity.

You have done a poor job of explaining why.

 

So you say. Proof.

Sorry, your horse is too high for me.

 

No. You say. You must have an idea why. I'm not asking for anything more than an explanation why you would say: But in the end it's all the same.

You have been cynical. You can continue to be. Just askin'.

 

Of course I say. And of course I do.

And since I read a few of your posts around here I must say that you appear to be far too intelligent to not understand what I'm saying.

But since I'm not only a cynical fuck but also a real nice guy I'm going to go with the flow.

Guy gives orphan baby to couple without kids = nice guy

Guy gives orphan baby to couple without kids on his own TV show for personal gain = sleazebag

Guy gives orphan baby to couple without kids on his own TV show and doing it without personal gain = same sleazebag

The motivation doesn't matter. A kid's life is NOT a TV show

 

The
Ghost

I might be: 'too intelligent to not understand what you are saying.'

But I'm just asking for an open and honest response.

'for personal gain'

Seems to mean more viewers and personal recognition....yet we know nothing about his viewership figures and nothing about what he would gain.

'on his own TV show and doing it without personal gain'

Well, he can't really win, can he.

Your point seems to be that handing over children regardless of the circumstances on TV is bad - that is fair enough.

*like extracting teeth* jeez.

 

You coulda stopped several posts ago. You knew what I meant.

But you just had to play professor.