Originally posted by KazetNagorraExplain please what you mean by no options? Do you mean the option not to have kids in the first place? What about the option to give them up if you can't afford to provide for their basic needs?
What is the incentive to make responsible choices if no options are given?
1 edit
Originally posted by dryhumpSince when is it considered an "irresponsible" choice for working families to have children?
What is the incentive to make responsible choices if the government cleans up every mess you make. Did you ever see a rich kid who got DUI's that mommy and daddy took care of? The government is giving people that same kind of attitude.
What is the point of having a society if it doesn't provide protection to its most vulnerable members?
Originally posted by dryhumpIt wont be long before the Dems will limit the number of kids you can have. So we will all be OK.
Explain please what you mean by no options? Do you mean the option not to have kids in the first place? What about the option to give them up if you can't afford to provide for their basic needs?
Originally posted by dryhumpSo working families should have to give their children to wealthier families because the cost of health care has skyrocketed in the last 20 years?
Explain please what you mean by no options? Do you mean the option not to have kids in the first place? What about the option to give them up if you can't afford to provide for their basic needs?
Originally posted by no1marauderIf health insurance is indeed a basic need, as you and the president seem to feel, than it is irresposible to have children if you can't provide it for them.
Since when is it considered an "irresponsible" choice for working families to have children?
What is the point of having a society if it doen't provide protection to its most vulnerable members?
Originally posted by dryhumpThis is the "new" right wing solution to children not having health care because their working parents can't afford it? To tell them to put their kids up for adoption?
Not having kids isn't a sensible, realistic option? Giving kids up whose basic needs you can't provide for isn't sensible or realistic?
Please put that in the Republican platform next election.
Originally posted by dryhumpDon't you think it's pretty stupid to argue that people in one of the richest countries in the world should not have children because they supposedly can't afford it?
Not having kids isn't a sensible, realistic option? Giving kids up whose basic needs you can't provide for isn't sensible or realistic?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, personal responsibility doesn't end just because some people you live with are rich.
Don't you think it's pretty stupid to argue that people in one of the richest countries in the world should not have children because they supposedly can't afford it?
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're telling me on the one hand that health insurance is a basic need and then you're going to tell me that parents who can't provide it are not doing something wrong? What if they couldn't pay their electric bills?
This is the "new" right wing solution to children not having health care because their working parents can't afford it? To tell them to put their kids up for adoption?
Please put that in the Republican platform next election.
Originally posted by dryhumpBut what is the point of making the health of poor children the responsibility of the parents and not government? Who gains anything from this? It can't be society, because universal health care is cheaper.
No, personal responsibility doesn't end just because some people you live with are rich.