Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So your answer is to starve those kids..... those babies didn't do anything wrong and certainly didn't ask to be here.....but you don't want a penny going to abortion either....
Take the kids away and put them in better homes. My parents were addicts and handed me off to alcoholics when they were unable to take care of me, and I'm angry as ****.
Take the kids away and put them in better homes. My parents were addicts and handed me off to alcoholics when they were unable to take care of me, and I'm angry as ****.
Yup..put them in homes where their foster parents feed them.
So your answer is to starve those kids..... those babies didn't do anything wrong and certainly didn't ask to be here.....but you don't want a penny going to abortion either....
I don't care if money go towards abortion or not, but it's not my responsibility to pay for people who can't support themselves. Let them put the babies up for adoption or better yet not have sex unless they can afford them.
So the kid can starve because her mother is an addict.......THIS country should be better than that and it is and it's certainly better than you.
I didn't say that, I said fine give her food but I don't care if her mom starved. She should have been taken from her mom and her mom should have been kicked off welfare.
The greatest problem seems to be the implicatios (sic) that these [out-of-wedlock] births have on our government and our society...The democrats must be licking their chops. A dynamo producing more government-dependent voters.
Certainly, unmarried child-bearing is a serious social problem, a point I recently made myself in another thread. But to suppose that children born out of wedlock is the only problem, to attempt to isolate it from what are interconnected and related social ills including unmarried cohabitation and divorce, and then to exploit statistics showing that your one favorite isolated dimension of the problem is down to black girls and Latinas, is deplorable.
Yes, divorce, unmarried births, and unmarried cohabitation (DUBUC) absolutely are problems which threaten the very root and core of our society.
No, DUBUC does not "belong" to the right or the left: academics divergent in their views and methodology as Charles Murray and Sara McLanahan, and members of the commentariat as widely-spaced on the political spectrum as Ross Douthat, Alex Kotlowitz and KathleenParker, have all addressed these related issues and pointed to their seriousness.
Moreover, DUBUC is categorically, indisputably associated with a particular race or class. In his latest book, Charles Murray, by far the highest-profile scholar working on these issues from a conservative perspective, demonstrated by reference to copious research and data that DUBUC is at least as much a problem for lower-middle class white Americans as black and Hispanic. The evidence is absolutely clear that virtually the only section of American society where marriage is still a vital institution is the upper-middle and upper classes.
So, congratulations on drawing attention to a problem which is far too neglected in our society. But your cynical and petty attempt to exploit it as a partisan dog whistle is pathetic, despicable, and to the extent that such a maneuver will only serve to bury the issue under partisan heat and hatred, fundamentally destructive to our country and society.
(edit): Anyone tempted to succumb to the ill-conceived notion that these interrelated problems affect only visible minorities or members of the lower class might find this column in Slate, by W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at U. of Virginia, and upper-middle-class single mother, instructive.
Certainly, unmarried child-bearing is a serious social problem, a point I recently made myself in another thread. But to suppose that children born out of wedlock is the only problem, to attempt to isolate it from what are interconnected and related social ills including unmarried cohabitation and divorce, and then to exploit statistics showing that your one favorite isolated dimension of the problem is down to black girls and Latinas, is deplorable.
Yes, divorce, unmarried births, and unmarried cohabitation (DUBUC) absolutely are problems which threaten the very root and core of our society.
No, DUBUC does not "belong" to the right or the left: academics divergent in their views and methodology as Charles Murray and Sara McLanahan, and members of the commentariat as widely-spaced on the political spectrum as Ross Douthat, Alex Kotlowitz and KathleenParker, have all addressed these related issues and pointed to their seriousness.
Moreover, DUBUC is categorically, indisputably associated with a particular race or class. In his latest book, Charles Murray, by far the highest-profile scholar working on these issues from a conservative perspective, demonstrated by reference to copious research and data that DUBUC is at least as much a problem for lower-middle class white Americans as black and Hispanic. The evidence is absolutely clear that virtually the only section of American society where marriage is still a vital institution is the upper-middle and upper classes.
So, congratulations on drawing attention to a problem which is far too neglected in our society. But your cynical and petty attempt to exploit it as a partisan dog whistle is pathetic, despicable, and to the extent that such a maneuver will only serve to bury the issue under partisan heat and hatred, fundamentally destructive to our country and society.
(edit): Anyone tempted to succumb to the ill-conceived notion that these interrelated problems affect only visible minorities or members of the lower class might find this column in Slate, by W. Bradford Wilcox, director of the National Marriage Project at U. of Virginia, and upper-middle-class single mother, instructive.
....geez,....I didn't write the frickin' article. Go complain to the authors.
You're right, we can't let them starve. But their numbers are growing and it's putting a strain on those already tightening their belts to afford to pay for their own families.
The proportion of payers to takers is getting smaller and the middle class is feeling the pinch.
What will happen if the economy continues to decline ?
It's not like people are rolling in dough here..we're cutting back and not spending and watching our pennies.
What happens when it comes to 1 taxpayer supporting 2 non taxpayers ?
Who the hell says this is going to happen? Do you honestly think the US is going to go 3rd world anytime soon?
No, you drew from it conclusions which apparently you now recant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
