catzmeow
Gold Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #121
And yes your plan sounds wonderful, in theory. In reality, why are we supporting these folks anyway? I am all for , 100% helping those in need. I am 100% against helping those who make bad choices knowing full well that Uncle Sam will bail them out.
The ONLY persons I feel sorry for in that situation is the children who did nothing to deserve being born to such shitty parents.
I suspect that that is your concern as well. So , if we REALLY wanted to help those kids we wouldn't abort them, we would get them out of the shitty environment they were born into and into a more stable , more mature home.
Does that mean taking children away from unfit pieces of shit? Yep, sure does. Plenty of good folk out there who can't have kids of their own, or who would love to help a child in need.
And guess what; I suspect if the government quit making it so easy to get so much free shit , that people would start acting more responsibly. That's just common sense. Take away a tight rope walker's safety net and he's a lot more careful when he walks that rope.
These people we are talking about are morons. Sooner or later you have to let them fail so that they learn to succeed.
And just in case you were thinking it , I am 100% against corporate welfare as well. Hell, I'm so far against corporate welfare that I think the minimum wage should be raised to $20 an hour and companies should be told that paying wages so low that they have employees who qualify for welfare while a few get rich is no longer acceptable.
I work with the child welfare system, it is considerably more expensive, time consuming, and detrimental to children's welfare to put them through that system than it is to prevent their birth.
You share the same goals with me, I'm just more familiar with the longterm effects on kids of being in the child protection system, and the limitations of those systems around the U.S.
Why don't we remove children before they are abused or neglected by a parent? Because to do so would be a violation of our constitution. In our system, people are innocent of wrongdoing until they are proven guilty. In order to remove a child from a parent, the parent must be found guilty of abuse/neglect of the child. The finding of guilt requires exposing children to abuse/neglect, often unreported for years, before removing them from the home of a parent guilty of child abuse.
You can't just take people's children away because they're poor and you don't approve of their choices.
So, as stated, the best option is to prevent the birth (not talking about abortion here) of children who are unwanted or can't be properly cared for.
I don't like using my tax dollars to give away free stuff, but I've worked with these kids for 21 years now. We would be better off helping women prevent pregnancies they don't want.
And no, I don't think it's a good idea to let irresponsible people fail when infants are involved. That's part of the reason that our infanticide rate (not talking abortion, again) is so high in this country.
see, the people you're talking about, that you wish to learn from their mistakes...their mistake, quite often, is abusing, neglecting or even killing their child. The risk of harm to the innocent child outweighs the possible lessons that might be learned by the parent, in my book.
Last edited: