From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 11:54:03 MDT
Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: "Jerry Mitchell" <jmitch12@tampabay.rr.com>
>
> > > >From: "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com>
>
> > > >I think deadbeats who bring children into the world without
> > > the means to
> > > >adequately support them should be punished for this
> > > unconscionable abuse
> > > >and
> > > >negligence, and the children should be placed with more responsible
> > > >parents.
> > >
> > > A few questions:
> > >
> > > What of the inalienable right to procreate? Should that be
> > > limited only to
> > > the fiscally fit? Should that right be denied to the poor?
> > > If so, why
> > > don't we just sterilize everyone living in poverty until they
> > > can prove that
> > > they are financially responsible enough to have the procedure
> > > reversed?
> > > Sound a little Orwellian?
> > >
> > > Do you think children would be better off in foster care than
> > > with their own
> > > loving parents, simply because the parents are poor? Have
> > > you ever known
> > > anyone raised in the foster care system?
> > >
> > > -Zero
> >
> >Straw man here as I see it. Just because someone SHOULDNT havent children
> >doesnt mean they dont have a right to have them. I personally think you
> >shouldnt drink alchol, but you certainly have the right.
>
> Definitely a straw man argument. But I didn't set it up. I merely pointed
> out what a defenseless argument it is. (For those having difficulty
> following: the "straw man" is the argument that people who have kids without
> the resources sans subsidization to support them should have their kids
> taken away.)
If you are going to treat kids as property, as you seem to be doing,
then it's an inherent component of property ownership to be responsible
for the upkeep of your property. If you don't pay property taxes or use
taxes, your property can be taken away, for example. If you do not
maintain your property such that it becomes a nuisance to other property
owners, it can be confiscated from you. If you insist on treating kids
as property, then there is an indeniable responsibility component to
ownership of children. If you produce kids (but cannot pay for their
upkeep to keep them fed, clothed, housed, educated, and socialized such
that they do not become nuisances to other individuals in the
community), such that other people (the taxpayers of a welfare system)
are paying for that upkeep, then they are no longer YOUR kids, they are
the taxpayer's kids, and you are merely their custodian, a position that
can be revoked at the whim of the proper owners of the kids in question.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:11 MST