Butters 0 #26 January 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo what should be the consequences of an individual having a child that they can't support? Having to live with her parents would be one example. If that is all the support the individual needs than it would be one example. Do you have any other examples? QuoteQuoteTake the child away, let the child die, ... Personally, I am not willing to let kids die here from starvation. If she can't care for the child, and they are at risk, then they get taken away for the benefit of the kid. I'm not either. The question is, should we be proactive or reactive? Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #27 January 30, 2009 QuoteI support lots of people's rights to do stupid things. That doesn't mean I think they're either right or smart to do them. Having a lot of children should not be presumed to be "stupid". Everyone has their own idea of how many is too many. Just because your chosen number is lower than that of others, does not make them stupid. My father was the youngest of ten children. Does that make my grandma "stupid"? I think not. If you don't want 10 children, that's your free choice to make. But you shouldn't call people names who choose differently from yourself. Ben Franklin was born the 15th of 17 children. John F. Kennedy was one of 9 children. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has 9 children. Queen Victoria had 9 children. Thank gosh someone wasn't around to tell those parents that they couldn't have any more children! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 January 30, 2009 Quote>If you support her right to choose for herself how many children she can have, >then you shouldn't have an opinion either way about if it was the right thing to >do, because it's entirely up to her, and whatever she chooses, is right. I don't get it. You have quite vehemently supported the right of people to own weapons. Does that mean that you have no opinion on people who get drunk and shoot themselves accidentally? Is whatever they choose to do, right? I'll bet if you applied your brain power for more than just a few seconds, you could distinguish substantial difference between having children and shooting yourself, thereby rendering your comparison invalid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #29 January 30, 2009 >If that is all the support the individual needs than it would be one example. Do >you have any other examples? Sure. A surrogate mother having a child for someone else. A couple having a child they can't support right _now_ - but the father was offered a better job. >The question is, should we be proactive or reactive? Is an ounce of prevention >worth a pound of cure ... We should be proactive; often we have to be reactive. I'm all for education, specifically contraception, the risks of unprotected sex and the costs and the costs/difficulties in bringing up a child. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #30 January 30, 2009 QuoteWe should be proactive; often we have to be reactive. I'm all for education, specifically contraception, the risks of unprotected sex and the costs and the costs/difficulties in bringing up a child. Good, great, grand, now be realistic. Individuals make irresponsible decisions regardless of education, how do we make them responsible for the consequences?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #31 January 30, 2009 > Individuals make irresponsible decisions regardless of education, how do we >make them responsible for the consequences? By letting nature take its course. If you get pregnant, you have kids and have to raise them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #32 January 30, 2009 Quote> Individuals make irresponsible decisions regardless of education, how do we >make them responsible for the consequences? By letting nature take its course. If you get pregnant, you have kids and have to raise them. But if we let nature takes its course these children would starve to death."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #33 January 30, 2009 QuoteQuoteI support lots of people's rights to do stupid things. That doesn't mean I think they're either right or smart to do them. Having a lot of children should not be presumed to be "stupid". Everyone has their own idea of how many is too many. Just because your chosen number is lower than that of others, does not make them stupid. My father was the youngest of ten children. Does that make my grandma "stupid"? I think not. If you don't want 10 children, that's your free choice to make. But you shouldn't call people names who choose differently from yourself. Ben Franklin was born the 15th of 17 children. John F. Kennedy was one of 9 children. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has 9 children. Queen Victoria had 9 children. Thank gosh someone wasn't around to tell those parents that they couldn't have any more children! You should consider mortality rates during the times of some of your examples. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #34 January 30, 2009 >But if we let nature takes its course these children would starve to death. Right. And we'd have to let people die of pneumonia, hypothermia and starvation. Fortunately, we can avoid/cure those things nowadays, and most people see that as a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #35 January 30, 2009 QuoteQuote> Individuals make irresponsible decisions regardless of education, how do we >make them responsible for the consequences? By letting nature take its course. If you get pregnant, you have kids and have to raise them. But if we let nature takes its course these children would starve to death. No - it's quite natural for the majority of parents to care for their children. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #36 January 30, 2009 Quote >But if we let nature takes its course these children would starve to death. Right. And we'd have to let people die of pneumonia, hypothermia and starvation. Fortunately, we can avoid/cure those things nowadays, and most people see that as a good thing. So we will be responsible for the consequences of their actions. I get it now ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #37 January 30, 2009 Quote Quote Quote > Individuals make irresponsible decisions regardless of education, how do we >make them responsible for the consequences? By letting nature take its course. If you get pregnant, you have kids and have to raise them. But if we let nature takes its course these children would starve to death. No - it's quite natural for the majority of parents to care for their children. Did you bother to read the thread ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,453 #38 January 30, 2009 Why don't you put together and state the plan that you think would address this? Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #39 January 30, 2009 >So we will be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Or let two year olds die of starvation. Your call, I guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #40 January 30, 2009 QuoteWhy don't you put together and state the plan that you think would address this? Wendy W. If I had a plan I wouldn't be asking the questions."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #41 January 30, 2009 Yes indeed. I'm intrigued by you saying: 'The question is, should we be proactive or reactive? Is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure ...' What is your solution? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #42 January 30, 2009 Quote>So we will be responsible for the consequences of their actions. Or let two year olds die of starvation. Your call, I guess. I agreed with you that we shouldn't let them starve but then you stated that we should let nature take its course which would be starvation ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #43 January 30, 2009 >but then you stated that we should let nature takes it course which would be >starvation . I think that's pretty rare, actually. My parents wanted two kids; they ended up with three. Oddly, none of us starved to death. 99% of the time, parents can support the kids they have, even if you think they should have had fewer kids. It's that 1% we're talking about here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #44 January 30, 2009 Quote>but then you stated that we should let nature takes it course which would be >starvation . I think that's pretty rare, actually. My parents wanted two kids; they ended up with three. Oddly, none of us starved to death. 99% of the time, parents can support the kids they have, even if you think they should have had fewer kids. It's that 1% we're talking about here. Yes, it is that 1% we're talking about here ... what should we do with them?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #45 January 30, 2009 >what should we do with them? The parents? If they're actually endangering their kids, then prosecute them for that. The kids? Again, if they are actually in serious danger, take them away and place them with another family. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #46 January 30, 2009 Quote>what should we do with them? The parents? If they're actually endangering their kids, then prosecute them for that. The kids? Again, if they are actually in serious danger, take them away and place them with another family. What should we do with individuals who have children but can't support them? Should we support the kids and them? Should we just support the kids? Should we require anything for the support? PS: I'm not suggesting you need to answer the questions. These are questions I have that I'm trying to find answers for."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,006 #47 January 30, 2009 >What should we do with individuals who have children but can't support them? Well, there are a few possible cases there. 1) They have kids, but they cannot support them well. (i.e. they are living in a hovel but are not in danger of starving.) Leave them be. 2) They have kids, but cannot support them at all i.e. they are in danger of starving. Here you have a few options: 2a) Let them starve. Some people might be OK with this; I'm not. 2b) Take the kids away and place them in another home. The most drastic and expensive but most effective (in the long run) solution. 2c) Give the parents enough money to keep the kids fed. Much cheaper than 2b but much more prone to abuse of the system. 2d) Support the kids more directly (i.e. via school lunch programs or the WIC program.) A sort of compromise between 2b and 2c. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #48 January 30, 2009 Quote>What should we do with individuals who have children but can't support them? Well, there are a few possible cases there. 1) They have kids, but they cannot support them well. (i.e. they are living in a hovel but are not in danger of starving.) Leave them be. 2) They have kids, but cannot support them at all i.e. they are in danger of starving. Here you have a few options: 2a) Let them starve. Some people might be OK with this; I'm not. 2b) Take the kids away and place them in another home. The most drastic and expensive but most effective (in the long run) solution. 2c) Give the parents enough money to keep the kids fed. Much cheaper than 2b but much more prone to abuse of the system. 2d) Support the kids more directly (i.e. via school lunch programs or the WIC program.) A sort of compromise between 2b and 2c. I like some of the options you present but am still questioning whether we should require anything from the parents such as parenting classes, mandatory birth control, etc..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #49 January 30, 2009 What if they fail the class? Have poor attendance? How on earth do you think mandatory birth control should be policed? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #50 January 30, 2009 QuoteHow on earth do you think mandatory birth control should be policed? It would be much easier to euthanize the whole familly. What the hell, throw in the short bus kids while you are at it.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
