Reply to Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Should welfare recipients be required not to have children while on welfare? Agree or disagree? Why "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Pointless to debate this crap.  
No one-size-fits-all solution to socioeconomic dilemmas such as this, welfare recipients having children.
From a social standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to tell me I can't have kids?"
From an economic standpoint one can easily ask the question, "Who the hell are you to demand I shell out more tax dollars?"
Somebody's [i]rights[/i] are going to get infringed upon.
Somebody's [i]ethics[/i] are going to be compromised.
Somebody's [i]ideals[/i] are going to get tossed aside.
Ultimately you'll be left with the question, "Whose rights and ethics and ideals are more important, the wealthy few in control or the underprivileged poor who far outnumber them?"
Good luck answering that question.
[/quote]

You're trying to turn it into a chicken-or-egg question and inject what I believe to be false equivalency - let's look at it more fundamentally than that.  In ancient times, if you could not afford to feed or shelter your kids they would die of starvation and exposure.  That fundamental responsibility to protect them is first and foremost on the parent.  If the parents are blowing it and aren't fulfilling their responsibilities, then ethics and ideals are already out the window.  How meaningful is a perceived right to have kids when you would just leave your children to die in absence of someone else taking care of them?  The social safety net provided by taxpayer dollars is the "nice to have" but is not and has never been central in terms of responsibility and ethics - the role, responsibility and ethics of society as a whole to take care of your kids is definitely secondary to the role of the parents themselves.[/quote]

Wow, you are cold.

I take it you lucked out in being born to parents who took care of you.[/quote]

It's not luck or random chance.  It's called values and responsibility.  Pass it on.[/quote]

Name for me one child who has picked his or her parents out.[/quote]

It's not about picking parents out.  It's about getting your shit together if you are going to be a parent.  You shouldn't be having kids if you can't properly support or raise them,  [/quote

You just don't get it, do you?  How obtuse can you be? I'm taking the kids' perspective here.  The perspective of a child who is already in this world, born to imperfect parents.  What is a civil society going to do once the parents have already brought children into this world whether or not they could properly support or raise them?  What if you'd been born to parents who didn't make enough money to support you properly?  Are you saying you'd have been fine with the state taking away help from your family, so that you would go hungry, or be homeless, in order to teach your parents a lesson about responsibility?  Children can't force their parents to change. They can't get jobs to fend for themselves. And yet you want to punish children because their parents are struggling.

You lucked out in being born to parents who were able to support you.  Many children are not so lucky and are born into poverty.  I'm talking about their world and what you would do about it.  From what you've written above it seems you are fine with letting them starve.
[/quote]

Innate parental instinct will prevent that child from starving.  We may frown upon the means and methods parents go to...panhandle, dig through garbage, theft, prostitution, etc...but nonetheless whether stinking rich or filthy poor parents have done and will do anything and everything for the sake of their children.  The question is whether society is willing to go so far as well by surrendering more tax dollars, sponsoring at-risk families, initiating more programs and community organizations to help the disadvantaged, etc...or are we content with the ideology that its every man/woman/child for himself?  [/quote]

No civilized society is content to let children go hungry in order to save taxpayers a few dollars, and you are wrong that children in this country do not go hungry.  Read through some of the threads on this forum about growing up poor to open your eyes.  Go talk to people who work for child welfare agencies or food banks.  Hunger is still a huge issue in the US.  It is not okay that we would let parents resort to prostitution and digging through garbage and theft to provide something for their children.  Funding programs that help those who struggle benefits society in general.  I would much rather pay extra tax dollars to help keep the poverty level down than to deal with the consequences of rampant poverty (including higher crime rates, problems in schools, etc. etc.)[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics