Whose responsibility is it to pay for your children?

We meant it takes a village to pay for your children

Published on September 27, 2007 By Draginol In Democrat

In a discussion I had today, an argument was posed:

Why do conservatives hate insuring kids?

Of course, it's a strawman argument. Conservatives object to paying for other people's personal decisions.

Having a child, is a choice. Liberals are overwhelmingly in favor of "Abortion rights" and therefore see having children as a "choice".

On the other hand, they apparently against choice when it comes to whether other people should have to pay for the choice a woman makes.

As one pregnant left-wing poster put it:

Speaking as an uninsured, unemployed, pregnant Vermonter, it sickens me to think that my child will likely have very little health care in the future. While I'm not given a break for my OB appointments, the clinic my husband attends does have a sliding scale fee structure as well as long term payment plans. And of course, there's the free clinic in town, which has people from New Hampshire and Massachusetts going to it, because it's the only health care they receive at all.

I think the poster has it right on - children get in the way of the money.

You see, she's not being greedy. Her demand that other people have their property confiscated by the government to be given to her isn't greed. No, the greed lies with those who object to having their earnings syphoned off to be given to someone who has chosen to have a child they can't afford.

Comments (Page 2)

Leauki

on Sep 27, 2007

I think one of the problems is that some parents teach their kids that the government should pay for them because they deserve it.

The kids do deserve it. And that's the problem. Most conservatives agree that the kids deserve it. And that makes it easy for liberals to use kids as hostages and demand payment. They know that conservatives will pay, for the children, even though these are the same conservatives who are greedy and social darwinist.

So what have we learned:

1. If you produce children you cannot or decide not to support, you are a good person.

2. If you demand payment and threaten that otherwise you will not support them children as well as they deserve it, you are a good person.

3. If you belong to the group of people who might pay so that the children get the support they need and deserve, but question the moral superiority of people who produce children they know they cannot support (1) and of people who use their children as hostages (2), you are evil and greedy.

CharlesCS

on Sep 27, 2007

So what have we learned:

1. If you produce children you cannot or decide not to support, you are a good person.

2. If you demand payment and threaten that otherwise you will not support them children as well as they deserve it, you are a good person.

3. If you belong to the group of people who might pay so that the children get the support they need and deserve, but question the moral superiority of people who produce children they know they cannot support (1) and of people who use their children as hostages (2), you are evil and greedy.

This is like an 18 year old girl getting pregnant but doesn't know who the daddy is and instead of blaming her you skip her, then skip the mother and go straight to the grandfather and blame him for not educating his daughter properly.

Leauki

on Sep 27, 2007

I don't get the connection there.

Jewbu

on Sep 27, 2007

If you are in business as many conservatives are, it certainly helps on your tax returns to have donations to 501c3s. Be well.

Troy Ruiz

on Sep 27, 2007

ABORTION is our generations version of SLAVERY

The posts in this blog, while interesting, are just typical of the arguing that goes on just about everywhere I look, in the great USA. I think it is important to look at the foundational argument of Abortion, which gets little airtime.

ABORTION, like SLAVERY is based on the argument that a certain segment of the population isn't really human, but property. The slave was the property of whoever paid for him/her, just as a fetus is the property of the mother. The argument is a dehumanizing one and is all too common. For example, THOSE people over there are not like US because of [insert reason X, Y, Z]. A fetus isn't legally a person until it exits the womb 100%. If he/she has only exited 99% they are not legally considered a person and therefore have no rights, and is not 'really' human. They say it is just a mass of cells, like a tumor. Silly, I know.

I have three kids. I watched each of them come into the world. I went to all of my wife's doctor's appointments. To me, seeing and hearing the heartbeat of that little peanut on the ultrasound didn't seem much like a tumor. I am not a doctor, but I have never heard of a tumor having a heartbeat, a central nervous system, optic nerves, etc, etc,. You get the idea.

But, the idea that those little children, who are the most defensless among us, are not really human, persons, alive (more silliness) defies common sense and everything I know to be true about life.

The legal aspect also brings to my mind the idea of just how much lawyers have played a huge part in making sure ABORTION as well as SLAVERY remained legal, in their respective place and time. Didn't you know that it was once legal to own slaves in this country? It is arguably the biggest black mark (no pun intended) in our history. We had to fight a war to stop it, and now the old argument of who-is-a-person-and-who-is-not, has seemingly risen from the dead! Now, we have discovered new tools to brutalize human beings who are not 'really' human.

Jewbu

on Sep 27, 2007

"You see the problem here is that the responsibility you demand is only being taken by those who are actually responsible while giving a pass to the irresponsible and not trying to make them responsible. All this does is create the notion that you don't have to be responsible if you don't want to cause those who are will take care of you and your own. It takes away the motivation to become responsible. If you put your hands in the fire and get burned, while you do it again? Will you put your hand in the fire if you are told you will get burned and shown proof of it before you do it?"

I think this is where the straw man emerges as a stereotype of the poor. Children of "welfare" parents are still our children. We have cut welfare, transitioned to welfare to work, and still squak about somebody, in this case, a child, getting something for nothing. The people who are not "responsible" are rare from my experience in the field. Your suggestion regarding motivation is pop psych at its worst. No one can "make" anyone anything. We can reason, cajole, or threaten, but in the end, a person is or is not responsible. However they are is irrelevent to the child of that person as regards our responsibility as a society to care for each other.

Jewbu

on Sep 27, 2007

Andrew teaches: What is that supposed to mean: "outside of the parameters of social responsibility"? I can form any sentence and add that statement and the result would mean nothing: I am opposed to any way "outside of the parameters of social responsibility". (I can then include whatever war I do support in "social responsibility".)

That is a case of the no real Scotsman fallacy, a change of definitions in the middle of the statement. Tell me one or the other: Is there a demand that others pay or is there not?

Sodaiho: Of course we pay. We all pay. Its part of our obligation as a community. I do see how this question fits the logical fallacy you point to. It is not a change in the definition at al, but a understand of the definition itself. A No Real Scotsman fallacy is about the applicable truths of statements. This case is about individual versus social responsibility. I am taking the side of social responsibilty to a child, the author of the article, the responsibility of the child's parent. We cannot look at this argument as an either or: both are responsible. Moreover, you seem to think you do not have a social contract with your fellow citizens. I do.

Be well.
Be well.

Jythier

on Sep 27, 2007

"If you are in business as many conservatives are, it certainly helps on your tax returns to have donations to 501c3s."

For every dollar you donate, you get, at most, .30 cents off your taxes. Same with mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc. It doesn't help you to do them, but if you do them they pretend you didn't earn the money.

CharlesCS

on Sep 27, 2007

I don't get the connection there.

Sorry, I tend to confuse people sometimes. What I meant was the responsible person does not take blame for their responsibilities, they always look for someone else to blame. Kinda like when people blame the gun makers for murders.

CharlesCS

on Sep 27, 2007

I think this is where the straw man emerges as a stereotype of the poor. Children of "welfare" parents are still our children. We have cut welfare, transitioned to welfare to work, and still squak about somebody, in this case, a child, getting something for nothing. The people who are not "responsible" are rare from my experience in the field. Your suggestion regarding motivation is pop psych at its worst. No one can "make" anyone anything. We can reason, cajole, or threaten, but in the end, a person is or is not responsible. However they are is irrelevent to the child of that person as regards our responsibility as a society to care for each other.

Hey, I won't take your right away to think what you want, doesn't make you right though. As I stated above:

I do believe all children should have healthcare, after all they are our future.

Don't try to make it seem as if somehow we don't care. What bothers me is those parents who have the balls to claim the Govt wont help them when they are not ever trying to help themselves. That little thing about "no one can make anyone anything" is a load of crap, otherwise why would we have schools? This is not about molding the irresponsible as if it was required by law, this is about not taking away what can motivate people into becoming responsible. By telling people we will give you money if you are not working you are basically telling people you don't have to work and you still get paid, sure probably not better than a job but hell, you're not even working.

If we gonna go by your idea why do we even have people who work under $15 an hour? Why not just give everyone who can't make more than $15 an hour, for what ever reason it may be (Be it physically impaired, just not smart enough, too lazy, satisfied with what they make, poor), a welfare check and just have them sitting at home doing nothing. After all, these people are considered poor (I should know cause thats what people tell me) and poor people don't pay taxes.

Tiddler

on Sep 27, 2007

What I meant was the responsible person does not take blame for their responsibilities, they always look for someone else to blame.

Wouldn't that make them irresponsible?

Of course, it's a strawman argument. Conservatives object to paying for other people's personal decisions.

I agree with Draginol. I shouldn't have to pay for kids education either , and people without cars shouldn't have to pay for roads, and pacificists shouldn't have to pay for war, etc.
Lets all reduce our contribution to this society down to the exact amount that we get to take from it. In other words each to his own.

All aboard:Destination Utopia.

danielost

on Sep 27, 2007

Why is it that the Republican president had no problem signing off on a prescription drug benefit passed through a majority Republican congress? I am just cynical enough to believe that it has something to do with the fact that seniors can vote and contribute to campaigns and children can't.

so your saying that the childrens parents can't vote. is that what your saying. in that case you can't vote next year.

danielost

on Sep 27, 2007

I think God is a good example here. Yeah yeah I know...don't go there. But just a little, kay? God often blesses a believer in a family of unbelievers.

is it god or the believer that allows the unbelievers to benefit.

Jythier

on Sep 27, 2007

"is it god or the believer that allows the unbelievers to benefit."

Why is that important? God blesses people, people bless other people with that blessing, etc. Blessings are usually better shared or even given away.

danielost

on Sep 27, 2007

well according to you lefties on this thread. christ was also greedy.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!