On Apr 5, 2008, at 8:59 PM, Hal Vaughan wrote:
On Saturday 05 April 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:On Saturday 05 April 2008 02:24:17 pm Hal Vaughan wrote:I truly hope you're being facetious because the alternative would be to wonder if you've ever talked to any parents.Of course I know parents, and the ones who don't have anything resembling that kind of money lined up pretty much have hell to pay for it. It's an unenviable position that I plain can't understand why anybody would put themselves in to start with, much less consider normal.That you don't understand it does not mean that you are in any positionto judge them. That you admit you can't understand it supports that you are in no position to make such a judgement. If you don't understand it, you're not the one to make a judgement.
Actually there's one judgement we can all agree on... the vast majority of people having children (let's keep the straw-men of rape, incest, etc... out of the big picture discussion for the moment) are choosing to have sex.
They must then live with the consequences as responsible adults.Whether or not we make their responsibilities "easier" or "harder" to deal with becomes a societal decision.
The welfare of the child often is the "litmus test" for such decisions, and indirectly we often make the parent's decision to have sex "easier" because we choose as a society not to let the child suffer.
This is probably a good thing, from a balanced point of view -- neither fully socialistic nor fully capitalistic, but we also must openly recognize that it ultimately leads to an unfair situation for those willing to behave responsibly, and put limits on direct or indirect aid.
I say, start with ramping down the indirect aid -- drop dependent tax breaks. Fully aid those in the worst of situations where the child is at risk, and quit handing the typical middle-class parents free money every year just because they have kids. They'll budget and cope.
-- Nate Duehr nate@natetech.com