Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
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 4)
5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 
on Sep 28, 2007
Typical liberal logic... it never really adds up.
on Sep 28, 2007
Typical liberal logic... it never really adds up.


i think that was my point.

except for the job request
on Sep 28, 2007
You still are not reading. SHow me where I said "ON this thread".


lmao, omg and wtf??

Call me old fashioned Dr Guy but i do tend to make different arguments from thread to thread. Thats typically because the subject is different. Does anyone else here do that or is it just me??

Of course, your objection to this does explain alot about you and your style Dr Guy. Thanks for the insight.

I also tend to act differently in different situations and drive on different sides of the road depending on the continent. And btw if you were going to captialize anything shouldn't it have been the word "THIS".

How does the fact that I have a car(s) and use roads invalidate a statement I made that says people without cars shouldn't have to pay for roads?
Yes but I still end up paying for the roads other people choose to use.


The second is no proof that the first is invalid. Do you just randomly quote things I say and hope it fits?

That is the only reason you would bring this non-sequitar into the discussion.


No another, and the actual, reason was to demonstrate how ridiculous you were (are) being. Its a reflection technique and it seems to have worked.
on Sep 28, 2007

The second is no proof that the first is invalid. Do you just randomly quote things I say and hope it fits?

Do you randomly ramble on?  I merely proved you wrong using your own words.  Far be it for me to assume you just did not know what they hell you were talking about.  But still, when you are wrong, does it matter on which thread?  And when you prove yourself wrong, does it matter why you did it?

You are really a bore as you have no debating skills, just a nice way to laugh when you cant think of any excuses for your bone head statements.

Sorry I ever took the time to try to enlighten you WITH your own words.  I can see you cant read them either.

on Sep 29, 2007
I merely proved you wrong using your own words.


Simply repeating that you did something doesn't make it so Dr Guy. I realize repeatition is about all you have but its still not enough.

You've taken a statement I made about people without cars and tried to invalidate that with another statement I made about those (in this case me) with cars. If that works for you then great however some of us require a little more rigor in our connexxions.

Keep going though your apples and oranges are the start of a decent fruit salad.  

on Sep 29, 2007
So much for this not being about the %$$#^ asphalt.  !  
on Sep 29, 2007
"Reply By: Andrew J. Brehm Posted: Thursday, September 27, 2007 "

Me: People who chose to have children they cannot afford have no right to them. They should have the right to sell their original rights on the market. All the problems would be solved in one fell sweep.

"What "original rights" would they have if they have "no right" to them? '

Their original rights derive from the fact that they made the consider investment necessary to create and bear the child to term. However, the child being a human being in itself, he or she has the right to negotiate or to have someone else more knowledgeable - in the case of a young minor or baby - negotiate on his or her behalf for a better deal, as in sufficient food and medical care, etc. with new foster parents or guardians. This still leaves the original parents having made a considerable investment, so, unless they are unwilling or unable to negotiate on their own, they still have the primary option to make that negotiation, i.e., finding someone else to take over the right to raise the child in return for reimbursement for their time and trouble.

"Also, you are ignoring the children's rights. They have a right not to be sold like property."

You make that assumption, but I never said that. See above. There are separate sets of rights involved, child and parent and the rest of society. Unless there is some impediment, the parents who realized that they could not pay for food or perhaps expensive special medical care for a child with special needs, could sell their rights - NOT to ownership of the child (the child owns himself, BTW) - but to ownership of the rights to bring up the child.

"I'm not sure parents have a "right" to their children. I think it is rather a duty."

As I started out saying, life is a gift. The parents already invested quite a lot in bringing the child into existence. They don't owe the child anything, altho if they simply abandoned a child, I would feel that they should be castigated and socially ostracized for their failure to place a morally proper value upon the life of another individual. In any normal society, people are the most valuable assets of that society. The problem is how to make the $200,000+ investment in properly raising a child in such a way that reflects the rights and values of all concerned, such that the child realizes that potential value.

As I briefly mentioned, one way would be for parents to set up shareholding trusts for their children at birth. The trust would serve as a financial vehicle for people outside the parents to make investments in a child's education, etc., in the hopes of making a profit on the share value when the child reached the point of becoming productive.

Of course, you could not force the trust on the child. The child could reject it completely at legal maturity. However, doing so would likely wipe out a major asset by which he could get loans for college or to start a farm or business. Modeled in a way after the highly successful Grameen Bank microloans system, such a system could easilly cross international boundaries to allow mass investment from 1st world to 2nd and 3rd world kids anywhere.
on Sep 29, 2007
parents from the beginning of the world have been responsible for the children
on Sep 30, 2007
parents from the beginning of the world have been responsible for the children


I think the whole point of this article (aside from handing out another good, hearty liberal bashing of course) is to suggest they aren't always and that when they aren't to question whether the rest of us should be.
on Sep 30, 2007
I think the whole point of this article (aside from handing out another good, hearty liberal bashing of course) is to suggest they aren't always and that when they aren't to question whether the rest of us should be.


i think that the whole point of this article is who is going to pay for the child. thus who will raise the child. the parent or the state. even a bad parent is better than the state. and i don't mean evil parents but just parents that are bad at the job.
on Sep 30, 2007
i think that the whole point of this article is who is going to pay for the child. thus who will raise the child. the parent or the state.


Well then you're wrong. Paying for a childs welfare is not the same as raising a child. You only have to look at child welfare payments to recognize that. Just because their parents receive money from the taxpayer doesn't mean the taxpayer is raising their kids.

even a bad parent is better than the state. and i don't mean evil parents but just parents that are bad at the job.


No not in this case because the subject as you said is "payment". A bad parent in this case doesn't pay. From the childs that's not better than the state paying instead.



on Sep 30, 2007
who ever pays controls.
on Sep 30, 2007
A bad parent in this case doesn't pay.


Wow. Finally a liberal who's not afraid to state that they believe being on a limited income amounts to a character defect.

At least you're honest.
on Sep 30, 2007
remember Mr. green the man who was arrested for polygamy.


he wasn't found guilty of that. nor were charges filed for it.


he was found guilty for needing to put his 20 some kids on Medicare and food stamps.


oh and statutory raping his first wife in Mexico. where it wasn't rape.
on Sep 30, 2007

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.

You had a good argument going until you got to the car argument.

Government exists to do the things for society that are impractical for people to do for themselves.  Providing national defense, building roads both most definitely falls into that category.

As for schools, I'd say that that falls into that same area as well but I supsect that a larger % of conservatives would favor both private roads and private schools.

5 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5