Yup for the most part. If she's choosing to lead a life where she may potentially be paid considerably less due to her education then yes. If she doesn't like it, then go to school, learn a trade. It's not that hard, she still has a choice.

 

So the baby goes hungry if Mom isn't ambitious or if she doesn't make wise decisions? Should the baby not get health care?

"Should" we or "will" we?

 

My point is that we can rail against spending money on sex ed but we're still going to be paying in the form of welfare.

 

If we agree on that then can't we assume that the sex ed is preventing "some" pregnancies and , thus, saving welfare $$? Isn't it simply a matter of which hand we're pulling the $$ from?

 

Which is why I don't support our current welfare system either.:thumb:

So the baby goes hungry if Mom isn't ambitious or if she doesn't make wise decisions? Should the baby not get health care?

 

That's a pretty dumb statement, everyone knows the baby won't go hungry if people are aware of her status. The child would likely be put in a foster home if the mother is seen as unfit. Am I aware of how hard foster care can be, yes I am. So maybe that mother should think long and hard before she chooses to be selfish and put her wants first. She chose the life she's leading, I have no sympathy for that. Nor should I.

Which is why I don't support our current welfare system either.:thumb:

 

Fine. What do you suggest we as a society do the the children of these mothers? Are they on their own?

Yup, let's dump them out in the streets somewhere.....

Yup, let's dump them out in the streets somewhere.....

 

You said you were against welfare. Who isn't? However, if you say you're against it you have to have an answer to the real issue - what about the kids involved?

 

So you're against welfare. How do the kids get food and health care?

That's a pretty dumb statement, everyone knows the baby won't go hungry if people are aware of her status. The child would likely be put in a foster home if the mother is seen as unfit. Am I aware of how hard foster care can be, yes I am. So maybe that mother should think long and hard before she chooses to be selfish and put her wants first. She chose the life she's leading, I have no sympathy for that. Nor should I.

 

Being poor does not mean you are unfit.

You said you were against welfare. Who isn't? However, if you say you're against it you have to have an answer to the real issue - what about the kids involved?

 

So you're against welfare. How do the kids get food and health care?

 

No I didn't, read my previous post, I meant exactly what I said.

 

I'll give you a hint on what I do feel is necessary, it starts with an "R" and ends with "Form".

Being poor does not mean you are unfit.

 

If through the choices one has been given, and one has made choices which resulted in you not being able to qualify for aid, or support their child then I would say that sounds pretty much to me like an unfit parent.

You said you were against welfare. Who isn't? However, if you say you're against it you have to have an answer to the real issue - what about the kids involved?

 

So you're against welfare. How do the kids get food and health care?

 

The government pays for a lot of this now. I know of unwed young mothers out of high school who get subsidies for rent, free prenatal care, free health care, free milk/food, etc. Only thing is, it isn't free. Our tax dollars pay for it.

 

You are correct. It doesn't appear that the money we have spent on sex ed over the years has helped at all.

"Should" we or "will" we?

 

My point is that we can rail against spending money on sex ed but we're still going to be paying in the form of welfare.

 

If we agree on that then can't we assume that the sex ed is preventing "some" pregnancies and , thus, saving welfare $$? Isn't it simply a matter of which hand we're pulling the $$ from?

 

I think thats an oversimplification of the problem.

 

I could agree that sex ed may prevent a few pregnancies. However, the type of sex ed being offered probably is also creating some pregnancies, and at the same time it is probably having the effect of lowering behavioral standards by enabling types of behavior.

 

In addition, the welfare payments to such mothers seems to have no end.

 

If we can put a time limit on a war, we can put a time limit on welfare, and that might be a starting point.

That's a pretty dumb statement, everyone knows the baby won't go hungry if people are aware of her status. The child would likely be put in a foster home if the mother is seen as unfit. Am I aware of how hard foster care can be, yes I am. So maybe that mother should think long and hard before she chooses to be selfish and put her wants first. She chose the life she's leading, I have no sympathy for that. Nor should I.

 

So you advocate the govt (already shorthanded) making a determination at to one's level of "fit?"

 

You actually trust the government to make such a subjective decision?

I think thats an oversimplification of the problem.

 

I could agree that sex ed may prevent a few pregnancies. However, the type of sex ed being offered probably is also creating some pregnancies, and at the same time it is probably having the effect of lowering behavioral standards by enabling types of behavior.

 

In addition, the welfare payments to such mothers seems to have no end.

 

If we can put a time limit on a war, we can put a time limit on welfare, and that might be a starting point.

 

Look, I'm all for welfare reform. Who isn't?

 

However, when you say "put an end" to it and then you get cases where the mother still is not able to provide healthcare or food what then?

Look, I'm all for welfare reform. Who isn't?

 

However, when you say "put an end" to it and then you get cases where the mother still is not able to provide healthcare or food what then?

 

Take the child away. Give the child to someone who can pay. Children cost money, just like loaves of bread. Get churches and charities and communities involved, but not government or tax dollars.

So you advocate the govt (already shorthanded) making a determination at to one's level of "fit?"

 

You actually trust the government to make such a subjective decision?

If the amount of downsizing in welfare money given out was as small as I(and I assume SF41 as well) wanted it to be, then there would be plenty of money leftover for hiring "Welfare Watchers" to see what the recipients are doing with our money.

 

I don't want to know how many welfare recipients continually buy cigarettes, have cable TV, and other luxuries.