Taxpayers On The Hook To Feed Children

[actuarial]

They are largely the same group of people. But when the 15 year old boys acts in was that are detrimental to society he is punished, and when the 15 year old girl acts in ways that are detrimental to society she is rewarded.

Ignoring your false equivalencies, are you trying to say that the life of a 15 year old mother > the life of a 15 year old without a kid?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I understand what the law currently is. I am saying what it should be. I thought that was obvious.



Is it 100% a woman's choice to have a child or not? Liberals have said so for 40 years. Do you agree or disagree with this?

If it is 100% a woman's choice is current law then clearly the man should not have any consequence. Simple justice demands it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childbirth


Just a little FYI as a public service.

 

[actuarial]

Is it 100% a woman's choice to have a child or not? Liberals have said so for 40 years. Do you agree or disagree with this?

No, it's not. It is 100% a woman's choice if she decides to bring it to term though.

 

[nehalem256]

I think that the decision should be made in consultation with the father. But ultimately, it's her body and her choice.

So it is 100% the woman's choice.

The sort of "simple justice" favored by misogynists maybe. Not anyone else.

The man has a choice here also -- either take precautions or keep his equipment in his pants. If he's not willing to do that, then he takes the chance of creating a pregnancy over which he has no ultimate control and for which he is still responsible if it is carried through to birth.

Haha. Funny. A Republican would make essentially that same argument word for word for why abortion should be illegal. So what you are really saying is you want to control men's sexuality :sneaky:

And you concede a man has 0 control over whether a child is born, but yet you still want to hold him responsible for it. This is the height on injustice.

Regardless, you're trying to change the subject again. Pretending that women get pregnant without men being involved is the height of dishonesty. Comparing pregnancy to robbery is the height of idiocy.

Right. Having kids you cannot support and will not raise properly is a much bigger negative than robbery.

Please explain what should be done (obviously)

Obviously you should prevent stupid people from having children.

 

[nehalem256]

Ignoring your false equivalencies, are you trying to say that the life of a 15 year old mother > the life of a 15 year old without a kid?

If anything I would say the opposite.

No, it's not. It is 100% a woman's choice if she decides to bring it to term though.

What do you think having a child means?

HINT: It means bring the child to term and give birth to it.

 

[actuarial]

If anything I would say the opposite.

Well, then there are still consequences for their actions.

What do you think having a child means?

HINT: It means bring the child to term and give birth to it.

Do you know what conception is?

 

[nehalem256]

Well, then there are still consequences for their actions.

Me considering their life worthless is not a real consequence.

Do you know what conception is?

Yes. I also know that liberals having been saying for 40 years that conception does not create a child* , birth does.

*it creates a potential child :sneaky

 

[werepossum]

So stupid people have kids.

The government creates a program to bail them out.

The stupid people still fail to feed their kids

So the government create yet another program to bail them out.

Do I really need to explain what is wrong with this picture, and what should obviously be done instead?

I totally agree what's wrong with that picture; I just don't see a more practical solution. We have no way to verify whether a welfare mother feeds her kids other than by a very expensive and dehumanizing virtual enema for each of them, so if we don't feed them they simply won't get fed and we won't know it. I'm all for ripping children away from parents who are so trifling that they can't even be bothered to feed them if we provide the money for the food, but I can't think of a system I'd support which could identify these parents among the much larger welfare/food stamp/low income parent population. You can't use participation in the program, because then you get the people who have car repairs that month, or some other expense that exceeds their means, as well as those parents needy and otherwise who are simply showing up for the socialization (i.e. my kids like it) and after busting a few of the true deadbeats, those parents who won't feed their own children will simply go back to not feeding them at home. "Hungry child, no threat to Momma" is a lot different from the father who is desperately trying to repair his car to keep that minimum wage job, or the single mother who is thanking G-d she can now spend some of that food stamp money on Janie's OTC allergy medicine or afford that pizza party Johny wants to throw just like his friends. How do you separate out those horrible individuals from those desperate folk who would sacrifice to make sure their children are fed, but are taking advantage of this program to fill other pressing needs? I don't think it's possible even for people much smarter than I to create such a discriminating system which costs less than the feeding. Especially not in our federal government which operates everything like a sledgehammer even when a scalpel is needed.

The NEED for such a program pisses me off greatly. The program itself is probably the most sane solution to the problem, even though it flies directly in the face of my ideals. But ideals so rigid as to allow hungry American children are not a good thing. I'd say that allowing these parents to spend what we give them for their children on themselves instead is a lesser evil than allowing their children to go unfed.

Hey, at the least it's getting them out of the house and mixing with other children in a safe environment. That's got to be worth something too.

 

[actuarial]

Me considering their life worthless is not a real consequence.

You're dancing around the issue and you know it. It's a very simple question. Do you think the life of a 15 year old girls get better if she has a baby?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

And you concede a man has 0 control over whether a child is born, but yet you still want to hold him responsible for it.

No, I did not. A man has 100% control over whether or not he becomes a father.

If you aren't intelligent enough to accurately paraphrase others, refrain from doing it.

Obviously you should prevent stupid people from having children.

I'll gladly chip in on your vasectomy.

 

[nehalem256]

No, I did not. A man has 100% control over whether or not he becomes a father.

If you aren't intelligent enough to accurately paraphrase others, refrain from doing it.

I'll gladly chip in on your vasectomy.

A man has a choice of abstinence.

Sounds to me like we need more abstinence-only education.

To bad, as liberals point out, it doesnt work.

 

[nehalem256]

You're dancing around the issue and you know it. It's a very simple question. Do you think the life of a 15 year old girls get better if she has a baby?

No I don't. Notice that I am opposed to 15 year old girls being allowed to have babies.

But either 15 year old girls who have babies.

1.) Disagree with me.
2.) Are idiots.

I totally agree what's wrong with that picture; I just don't see a more practical solution. We have no way to verify whether a welfare mother feeds her kids other than by a very expensive and dehumanizing virtual enema for each of them, so if we don't feed them they simply won't get fed and we won't know it. I'm all for ripping children away from parents who are so trifling that they can't even be bothered to feed them if we provide the money for the food, but I can't think of a system I'd support which could identify these parents among the much larger welfare/food stamp/low income parent population. You can't use participation in the program, because then you get the people who have car repairs that month, or some other expense that exceeds their means, as well as those parents needy and otherwise who are simply showing up for the socialization (i.e. my kids like it) and after busting a few of the true deadbeats, those parents who won't feed their own children will simply go back to not feeding them at home. "Hungry child, no threat to Momma" is a lot different from the father who is desperately trying to repair his car to keep that minimum wage job, or the single mother who is thanking G-d she can now spend some of that food stamp money on Janie's OTC allergy medicine or afford that pizza party Johny wants to throw just like his friends. How do you separate out those horrible individuals from those desperate folk who would sacrifice to make sure their children are fed, but are taking advantage of this program to fill other pressing needs? I don't think it's possible even for people much smarter than I to create such a discriminating system which costs less than the feeding. Especially not in our federal government which operates everything like a sledgehammer even when a scalpel is needed.

The NEED for such a program pisses me off greatly. The program itself is probably the most sane solution to the problem, even though it flies directly in the face of my ideals. But ideals so rigid as to allow hungry American children are not a good thing. I'd say that allowing these parents to spend what we give them for their children on themselves instead is a lesser evil than allowing their children to go unfed.

Hey, at the least it's getting them out of the house and mixing with other children in a safe environment. That's got to be worth something too.

This is why you make no-fault divorce illegal and stigmatize having bastard children.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

A man has a choice of abstinence.

Glad we got the "men have zero control over whether they have kids" bullshit out of the way.

I guess that's progress.

 

[actuarial]

No I don't. Notice that I am opposed to 15 year old girls being allowed to have babies.

But either 15 year old girls who have babies.

1.) Disagree with me.
2.) Are idiots.

I am opposed to 15 year old girls having babies as well and never said other. That doesn't change the fact that there are still consequences to a girl who has a baby. They are not 'rewarded', overall, for having that baby.

 

[nehalem256]

Glad we got the "men have zero control over whether they have kids" bullshit out of the way.

I guess that's progress.

Yes. From now on I will be sure to men have no control over whether they have kids unless their sexuality is controlled by liberals :sneaky:

I am opposed to 15 year old girls having babies as well and never said other. That doesn't change the fact that there are still consequences to a girl who has a baby. They are not 'rewarded', overall, for having that baby.

Consequences are in the eye of the beholder.

in

case 1) there are clearly no consequences.

and

case 2) is an argument for preventing them from having babies in the first place, not for bailing them out afterward. Unless you want them to have worse lives... in which case why do you hate women?

 

[actuarial]

Consequences are in the eye of the beholder.

in

case 1) there are clearly no consequences.

and

case 2) is an argument for preventing them from having babies in the first place, not for bailing them out afterward. Unless you want them to have worse lives... in which case why do you hate women?

Who said I was against preventing teenage pregnancy? Proper sex education and free birth control are a good start.

 

[Sonikku]

I for one am outraged that children are getting freebies in the form of milk and fruits. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to PAY for that milk and fruit. And where does that money come from?! Job creators. These gluttonous kids are taking food off of job creators tables with with their liberal face stuffing for free mentalities. We might better just remove lunch from the school day. It would take some of the disproportionate amount of the burden off of the job creators while slimming down America's obese kids, so it's win-win.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I'll take the latter, thank you.

Well that's easy for you to say, you're not a cop or military and have obviously never fought a day in your life. Thus you obviously have no idea what trying to kick out all of these people would entail, it would basically be another Civil War. While I know most of you idiots are all too happy to start another war, I also know most of you pussies run to Canada when the war comes calling your name.

 

[OutHouse]

so the OP is about free lunches and now its about abortion... typical P&N

 

[Charles Kozierok]

so the OP is about free lunches and now its about abortion... typical P&N

Typical of any thread that nehalem posts in. Within one page it is about women and abortions.

 

[CountZero]

My whole point is the program shouldn't exist, taxpayers shouldn't pay for this

If feeding hungry children isn't something government should be involved what few things do you think it should be involved in? I'm honestly curious because I can't fathom how anybody could support having any government functions at all but not support feeding kids. So what should our precious tax dollars be used for?

 

[Incorruptible]

If feeding hungry children isn't something government should be involved what few things do you think it should be involved in? I'm honestly curious because I can't fathom how anybody could support having any government functions at all but not support feeding kids. So what should our precious tax dollars be used for?

This program is ripe for abuse and makes it so people are reliable on the government which sets a dangerous path, people need to be independent.

 

[CrackRabbit]

This program is ripe for abuse and makes it so people are reliable on the government which sets a dangerous path, people need to be independent.

So how is taking food away from hungry children a Christian thing to do?

 

[nehalem256]

If feeding hungry children isn't something government should be involved what few things do you think it should be involved in? I'm honestly curious because I can't fathom how anybody could support having any government functions at all but not support feeding kids. So what should our precious tax dollars be used for?

Well the logical answer would be preventing people who cannot feed children from having children in the first place.

 

[Incorruptible]

So how is taking food away from hungry children a Christian thing to do?

Its not taking food away because they are stealing tax dollars and when did I ever claim to be Christian? I thought I was suppose to be a Jew