Why? Society benefits from children who are properly cared for -- kids who don't grow up in poverty are less likely to become criminals, and are more likely to contribute to society. Since society shares in the benefits, why shouldn't it share in the costs? |
Society can bear the cost of children when society (in the form of government) gets to regulate how many children a woman has. I don't think government should be asked to write blank checks.
Sounds regulating sperm may be a good answer. |
Society already regulates child-rearing. There are laws regulating child abuse, education, custody, etc. These are all good things, of course, but society already has its say. It's not writing blank checks. |
I say kill old people... Homeless people and retarded people too. They aren't happy get too little care and use too many resources. I love Obama he has the guts to implement these needed policies.
|
Your modest proposal fails because Obama is not killing old, homeless, or retarded people. And clearly the delusional are doing just fine, because here you are and you even have internet access. |
Why? Are you suggesting the way of China would be the only way to go? The children have to bear the consequences of an aging population, be the work force when you are retired, keep society alive, and work at the old age home where they are the ones who change your smelly diapers Come to think of it, society should do so much more for the kids. You owe them big time |
Man and his sperm has been roaming free since the beginning of time. No government run by men will do anything about it |
+1,000,000!!!! |
Yes, that is kind of the point. |
Oh.... SNAP |
the thought that idiots HONESTLY believe that abortion helps those children by not letting them to be born into a less than perfect life, well that is a hilarious thought. might as well be a Jonathan Swift satire - lets EAT the poor! |