What difference does it make? Unless we are planning on extracting some form of punishment or retribution, fault is irreverent.
Assuming these people are teens or in their early twenties, they are not considering goverment support when they have sex. In fact, it's probably the last thing on their mind.
It's the last thing on their mind as is being irresponsible and careless because there is always a lending hand in our government unfortunately.
If you promote irresponsibility, don't be surprised if you end up with more irresponsible people. Now let me ask: do you think we have more irresponsible people today or more in 1960?
Even kids have to make life changing decisions. You can get your kid a drivers license at the age of 16 in most states, but that doesn't stop them from getting drunk one night and killing a family in an auto accident. Their age doesn't excuse their actions. They have to pay one way or another for making that mistake.
You're comparing apples and oranges. Getting drunk and killing someone in a car accident is a criminal offense. Having a child is not. In fact, 37% of all children born in the US are unexpected or an accident.
A surprising number of people consider the birth of child, even to poor people to be a good thing.
When we're talking about tax payer dollars to support children in poverty, what their parents did or did not do is irrelevant unless you consider punishing the children is the proper course of action.
So the parents get immunity because of their children???
It's not apples and oranges in the sense of responsibility. You kill people because you got drunk and drove a vehicle, you pay. You get pregnant and have a child you can't support--taxpayers pay? Where is the equity in that?
There is no such thing as an accidental pregnancy. An accidental pregnancy implies that you got pregnant through no fault of your own. Kind of like you were just walking down the street minding your own business and tripped over something.
Unfortunately, yes parents do get immunity; that is they get food and shelter because they have children to raise. Conservatives have never been able to come up with a way of punishing the parents for being poor without punishing the children.
Conservative's war against the poor has reached a new low. In red states like Alabama, where many students are on reduced price lunches, school officials put tags on children that say, "I need lunch money", so kids will be shamed by their classmates in hopes that will cause parents to come up with lunch money.
New Mexico recently passed a law forbidden schools from punishing children with negative lunchroom balances. Some school serve kids without money the "sandwich of same" which is a slice of cheese between two slices of white bread. Other schools force children without lunch money to clean the lunchrooms in front of their classmates to work off the debt. Probably the worst incident was a 3rd grader who was forced to wear a sign that his parents were deadbeats resulting in a beating by classmates and his removal from the school.
New Mexico Outlaws School ‘Lunch Shaming’
Sorry I don't trust the Dailylunch.com, but I don't. Neither do I trust the NY Times which is an arm of the Democrat party.
As for ways to punish the parents instead of the children, I came up with an idea long ago: anybody applying for public assistance has to be fixed before getting one red cent. That's it. No more having children while on welfare.
School lunch? I remember that when I was in school. The kid with the free lunch would sell it at half price to a kid who's parents gave him lunch money. Then he would buy a candy bar or something. The rest of the money both kids saved they used to buy cigarettes or pot. Great program.
I don't know what school lunch costs today because it's subsidized by the taxpayers anyway, but let's say that a lunch costs four dollars. Four dollars is twenty bucks a week. If a parent doesn't have twenty bucks to give to their kid, that kid should be taken away from the parents.
Plus I would be willing to bet anything that many of those kids with free lunch belong to a family that uses food stamps and can easily make a lunch from that stipend. And I would bet that most of those kids getting free lunch have a cell phone with data for pictures, internet and video chat with their friends.
