Whose responsibility is it to pay for your children?

Life is a gift, however long or short. Every individual is responsible for his or her own survival, either through their own action or through being the beneficiaries of other people's action. If the latter, then it is irrational to assume that someone else would help one without getting any benefit in return. I.e., one is responsible for providing some quid pro quo to one's parents or guardians.

In the past, this consisted of doing useful work on the farm, etc., or taking care of ones parents in old age. Now we have socialized these issues and often the only benefit to the parent is some nebulous "spiritual fulfilment," which means in fact prostitution - exchange of material benefits for emotional performances.

if parents were free to abandon their kids or sell or give away the rights to bring them up, then these problems would not occur. Those people who really wanted kids would pay the most for the privilege of raising them. And a society in which the kids were expected to form the equivalent of a share-holding trust in order to attract investment in their upbringing - college, medical care, etc., would be one in which both investors - including professional agencies like mutual funds as well as individual investors - worldwide,would have a vested interest in the success of every child. This is simply a modern update of 99% of human - pre-industrial - social history.

In such a society it would be reasonable - as it in fact is now, from a moral perspective - to ask the parents of a child why they were having children that they could not afford to properly feed and care for, especially as there is and would be even more so in a culture that raised children for profit, any number of potential replacements desperate for children. Just look at out adoption system now. It's a train wreck and nobody has a real material vested interest in the success of the child victims.

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.

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?

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

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

Draginol posts that it is a strawman argument that conservatives hate insuring kids. I don't think so. I think conservatives in fact hate insuring or taking care of anything they perceive to be someone else's problem. It is in this that their true colors come out as greedy, self absorbed folks whose idea of a social contract is formulated in some perverse Social Darwinism.

People have children for a variety of reasons and they often have hope that they will be able to care for them. Sometimes this hope materializes, sometimes not, sometimes through sloathfulness sometimes through circumstance, but none of which is really germaine to the issue of insuring the health of our nation's young.

Our young are our nation. They do not belong to a parent. There are many aspects of civil society that we recognize as our collective responsibility: defense, education, care of the aged and infirm, to name a few. The general quality of our nation and its future depends absolutely on the degree to which we each take some measure of responsibility for our nation's children.

Be well.

It is in this that their true colors come out as greedy, self absorbed folks whose idea of a social contract is formulated in some perverse Social Darwinism.

Then do explain how it comes that those same greedy self-absorbed folks are perfectly willing to pay for their own children, while liberals demand that other people do?

Why is it greedy to be willing to pay but not greedy to demand that others pay?

Draginol posts that it is a strawman argument that conservatives hate insuring kids. I don't think so. I think conservatives in fact hate insuring or taking care of anything they perceive to be someone else's problem. It is in this that their true colors come out as greedy, self absorbed folks whose idea of a social contract is formulated in some perverse Social Darwinism. People have children for a variety of reasons and they often have hope that they will be able to care for them. Sometimes this hope materializes, sometimes not, sometimes through sloathfulness sometimes through circumstance, but none of which is really germaine to the issue of insuring the health of our nation's young. Our young are our nation. They do not belong to a parent. There are many aspects of civil society that we recognize as our collective responsibility: defense, education, care of the aged and infirm, to name a few. The general quality of our nation and its future depends absolutely on the degree to which we each take some measure of responsibility for our nation's children.

I see that all as 'blah, blah, blah Take care of me and everyone else because we aren't successful and can't take care of ourselves and our offsprings and you owe it to us.'

Note to everyone: the world doesn't owe you, your children, or anyone else anything.  You want something?  Work for it.  Want your children to be insured, find employment that provides insurance, or the option of getting insurance, or ya know what?  Find an insurer that sells direct and have at it.

Should those that absolutely can't take care of themselves be covered by society?  Yes.  But there are many that could take care of themselves and don't for a host of reason.  If you are able-bodied and capable, then you should be working for the hand-outs you want society to provide.  If you are too young to work and need to be in schools and such, and have no relatives to provide for you, the again society can foot the bill.

Many people don't get insurance though because it is too expensive, especially if they are paying taxes and watching what is for them large portions of their income get taken away to help pay for others to live off society.  They'd rather have the money for other things, like perhaps getting an education that would hopefully lead to better employment later.

Why is it that the Republican president had no problem signing off on a prescription drug benefit passed through a majority Republican congress?  I am just cynical enough to believe that it has something to do with the fact that seniors can vote and contribute to campaigns and children can't. 

Dear Andrew,

There is no demand that others pay outside of the parameters of social responsibility. If I take care of my own assets (assuming as you apparently do, that our children are our particular assets and not our collective responsibility, that would be greedy, if at the same time I deny my obligations to my society.

You conclude: Why is it greedy to be willing to pay but not greedy to demand that others pay?

Society makes demands on each of us for the social good. I would "demand" each person in the society take a share in the financial responsibilities of the society at large. The fear conservatives seem to have is that others aren't paying enough and the fear liberals have is that the poor don't receive because of their poverty. In either case, the children still need care.

It is in our best interst as a society to care for our dependents. It speaks to our nature as a civilization. Conservatives seem to see civilization in Social Darwinistic terms, liberals in terms of a larger social contract forthe mutual aid and support of the society as a whole. I vale the latter and believe the former is seriously flawed.

Be well.

I think conservatives in fact hate insuring or taking care of anything they perceive to be someone else's problem.

I guess that is why the conservative states give far more money per capita to charity than the liberal ones.  Thanks for showing that you really dont think before you write.

As to the point, I think that poster was just echoing Nancy Pelosi.  She phrased the debate the same way.  If you are not for SCHIP, then you are against children.  And of course the media did not call her on that.

As a father of 2 boys, ages 4 and 9, I find it sad how, every day that goes by, people in this country have found ways to place blame that belongs to them on to other people or groups such as the Gov't.

When I was young I use to dream about falling in love with the irl of my dream. I dreamed about getting married, making lots of money and having kids. As the years went by the idea of having kids was starting to fade as I saw how this country, my country, was becoming more and more dangerous to children. After 18 years of virginity (trying to do the right thing) I lost control of my love life. I had no luck with girls when I was young and was desperate for companionship. I was lucky not to get my first real girlfriend pregnant since I did not use protection but I failed when I let my private parts take over when I met why wife and got her pregnant within a year of being together. It was not planned and I was not ready, neither was she. Since then I stepped up to the plate and year after year have struggled to keep my family just slightly above water. 4 years later she got pregnant again, not planned. I have never denied my ignorance and stupidity the past 10 years of my life when it came to having kids. I blow all my dreams out the window and have found it hard to find them since then.

One thing I have to say about how I went from a single man to a father of 2 without a college education, without a good job and without a clue what to do. I never blamed anyone but myself for any and all suffering my children may have suffered during the years they have been on planet Earth. I always have and always will feel it is my responsibility to provide them with food, shelter and medical care. As the man who could not hold his private parts in check, it is up to me to work my butt off if I have to to make sure they have the necessities and maybe some wants, after all they are children. It is also my responsibility to at least try to teach them to make the right choices in life. It's hard for me to think that I would not want my children to be like me because of how I handled life 9 months before they were born. I still think I am a much better person than most people out there. I just hope they follow my footsteps when I was young and wait till, at least, they are adults.

For those who didn't get it, my point is this:

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.

Speaking as an insured, employed, Floridian father and speaking for my insured, employed Floridian wife, it sickens me that people like her would rather have their kids be without insurance and spend the rest of their lives blaming the current Administration for it as oppose to getting a a job herself, one with insurance and having her husband get a better job with insurance. If this would seem out of their reach which would mean they were aware it would be out of their reach they should have never had a child or children and should be looking in the mirror when pointing fingers looking for someone to place blame on for the sad future their child or children will live due to their lack of responsibility.

Why is it that the Republican president had no problem signing off on a prescription drug benefit passed through a majority Republican congress?

Conservatives would like to know that as well.  But Brad said Conservatives, not republicans.

If there is one area in which I probably move toward the left...its kids.

I grouch and stammer about having kids of my own, but the truth is, I think children really are a blessing, a gift and not just to their family.  Healthy children are a resource to our society.  It is in our self interest as Americans to make sure our children receive good health care, and an opportunity for a good education.  Why?  Because we have to grow old in this country.  And the cliché really is true...Children are the future.  We either invest in them now....or pay the price later.  Healthy children learn better, act better, are just better equipped to take on life.

If I had to choose between health care for seniors or kids...hands down, kids win.  And not because they are weak and need cared for necessarily....but because it is best for the country in the long run.  Therefore, good for my family too.  We are more likely to get a return on investing in healthy kids....than say, investing in a dying generation.

I do have problems with people who have kids and EXPECT the gov to take care of them.  I think its wrong.  They are making bad choices.  In the end however, that choice produces an individual, a child.  Once the child is born, in my mind at least, it is an individual with rights.  And as in individual in a society such as ours, it behooves us to invest in that child.  The fact it "helps out" the irresponsible parents is an unfortunate by product.  But the alternative, not caring for the child at all, is not acceptable in my mind.

I think God is a good example here.  Yeah yeah I know...don't go there.  But just a little, kay?  God often blesses a believer in a family of unbelievers.  He doesn't withhold his blessing because the unbelievers will benefit.  He treats each person individually, and if the benefits of his grace brush those who are ungrateful and "undeserving" so be it.

I have a vested interest in the children of this country.  And I believe we pay now, or pay later.

 

 

Society makes demands on each of us for the social good. I would "demand" each person in the society take a share in the financial responsibilities of the society at large. The fear conservatives seem to have is that others aren't paying enough and the fear liberals have is that the poor don't receive because of their poverty. In either case, the children still need care.

You see the problem here is that the responsibility you demand is only being taken by those who are actually responsible while giving a pass to the irresponsible and not trying to make them responsible. All this does is create the notion that you don't have to be responsible if you don't want to cause those who are will take care of you and your own. It takes away the motivation to become responsible. If you put your hands in the fire and get burned, while you do it again? Will you put your hand in the fire if you are told you will get burned and shown proof of it before you do it?

I do believe all children should have healthcare, after all they are our future. What I don't agree on is parents who cry cause they don't have any while being perfectly capable of working and paying for it like me and my wife do. 2 people with no college education, no real experience for a good wage and hardly any family members to fall back on if we fail; yet here we are, a family of 4, fully insured, a roof over our head, food in the fridge, a car and bills up to date. If I can do it, so can they.

There is no demand that others pay outside of the parameters of social responsibility. If I take care of my own assets (assuming as you apparently do, that our children are our particular assets and not our collective responsibility, that would be greedy, if at the same time I deny my obligations to my society.

What is that supposed to mean: "outside of the parameters of social responsibility"? I can form any sentence and add that statement and the result would mean nothing: I am opposed to any way "outside of the parameters of social responsibility". (I can then include whatever war I do support in "social responsibility".)

That is a case of the no real Scotsman fallacy, a change of definitions in the middle of the statement. Tell me one or the other: Is there a demand that others pay or is there not?

Children are not assets. Please do not put words in my mouth. Children are people with rights, and one of their rights is that those who set them in the world must support them. I, as such, do NOT owe a random stranger anything. And whatever demands the parents of some children make only shows me that THEY are trying to evade their responsibility, using their children as hostages to force me to give them money, knowing, as they apparently do, that I would rather give in to their demands than see innocent children grow up in poverty.

You conclude: Why is it greedy to be willing to pay but not greedy to demand that others pay?

It's not a conclusion. It's a question. And I want to know the answer.

Society makes demands on each of us for the social good. I would "demand" each person in the society take a share in the financial responsibilities of the society at large. The fear conservatives seem to have is that others aren't paying enough and the fear liberals have is that the poor don't receive because of their poverty. In either case, the children still need care.

Yes, the children need care. And that is why their parents ought to care for them. If they CAN'T, they should apologise to society for their failure and perhaps society should take over their responsibilities. But I don't see that woman quoted in the article apologising for letting her children down. Instead she blames the same people she hopes will take over her responsibilities if she doesn't want them.

She treats her children not as a gift, not even as a liability, but as hostages.

It is in our best interst as a society to care for our dependents. It speaks to our nature as a civilization. Conservatives seem to see civilization in Social Darwinistic terms, liberals in terms of a larger social contract forthe mutual aid and support of the society as a whole. I vale the latter and believe the former is seriously flawed.

Except that the latter always needs the former to pay. How can a system not be flawed that relies on the other system to remain alive?

Our society doesn't have dependents. Individual couples do. The larger social contract you see is something you signed and want now others to follow. And even though you and I disagree what is best for society as a whole, you still think that I ought to pay for what YOU believe is good for society.

I think one of the problems is that some parents teach their kids that the government should pay for them because they deserve it. Then the kid grows up with that attitude and expects the government to take care of everything for them.

I also think people who think like this are going to continue to grow in number, because the people who don't think the government should pay for their children only have children they can afford, where the people who think the government should pay for their children continue to have more children because they're not paying.

Terp opines: Note to everyone: the world doesn't owe you, your children, or anyone else anything. You want something? Work for it. Want your children to be insured, find employment that provides insurance, or the option of getting insurance, or ya know what? Find an insurer that sells direct and have at it.


Sodaiho replies: Really? Whose highway arew you driving on? Whose army is defending you? A society is the matrix of individual and collective needs. The language of "Owing" is terribly short sighted, even stupid in the light of the inderdependent nature of social systems.

See ya.

I think one of the problems is that some parents teach their kids that the government should pay for them because they deserve it.

The kids do deserve it. And that's the problem. Most conservatives agree that the kids deserve it. And that makes it easy for liberals to use kids as hostages and demand payment. They know that conservatives will pay, for the children, even though these are the same conservatives who are greedy and social darwinist.

So what have we learned:

1. If you produce children you cannot or decide not to support, you are a good person.

2. If you demand payment and threaten that otherwise you will not support them children as well as they deserve it, you are a good person.

3. If you belong to the group of people who might pay so that the children get the support they need and deserve, but question the moral superiority of people who produce children they know they cannot support (1) and of people who use their children as hostages (2), you are evil and greedy.

So what have we learned: 1. If you produce children you cannot or decide not to support, you are a good person. 2. If you demand payment and threaten that otherwise you will not support them children as well as they deserve it, you are a good person. 3. If you belong to the group of people who might pay so that the children get the support they need and deserve, but question the moral superiority of people who produce children they know they cannot support (1) and of people who use their children as hostages (2), you are evil and greedy.

This is like an 18 year old girl getting pregnant but doesn't know who the daddy is and instead of blaming her you skip her, then skip the mother and go straight to the grandfather and blame him for not educating his daughter properly.

This is like an 18 year old girl getting pregnant but doesn't know who the daddy is and instead of blaming her you skip her, then skip the mother and go straight to the grandfather and blame him for not educating his daughter properly.

I don't get the connection there.

If you are in business as many conservatives are, it certainly helps on your tax returns to have donations to 501c3s. Be well.

ABORTION is our generations version of SLAVERY

The posts in this blog, while interesting, are just typical of the arguing that goes on just about everywhere I look, in the great USA. I think it is important to look at the foundational argument of Abortion, which gets little airtime.

ABORTION, like SLAVERY is based on the argument that a certain segment of the population isn't really human, but property. The slave was the property of whoever paid for him/her, just as a fetus is the property of the mother. The argument is a dehumanizing one and is all too common. For example, THOSE people over there are not like US because of [insert reason X, Y, Z]. A fetus isn't legally a person until it exits the womb 100%. If he/she has only exited 99% they are not legally considered a person and therefore have no rights, and is not 'really' human. They say it is just a mass of cells, like a tumor. Silly, I know.

I have three kids. I watched each of them come into the world. I went to all of my wife's doctor's appointments. To me, seeing and hearing the heartbeat of that little peanut on the ultrasound didn't seem much like a tumor. I am not a doctor, but I have never heard of a tumor having a heartbeat, a central nervous system, optic nerves, etc, etc,. You get the idea.

But, the idea that those little children, who are the most defensless among us, are not really human, persons, alive (more silliness) defies common sense and everything I know to be true about life.

The legal aspect also brings to my mind the idea of just how much lawyers have played a huge part in making sure ABORTION as well as SLAVERY remained legal, in their respective place and time. Didn't you know that it was once legal to own slaves in this country? It is arguably the biggest black mark (no pun intended) in our history. We had to fight a war to stop it, and now the old argument of who-is-a-person-and-who-is-not, has seemingly risen from the dead! Now, we have discovered new tools to brutalize human beings who are not 'really' human.

"You see the problem here is that the responsibility you demand is only being taken by those who are actually responsible while giving a pass to the irresponsible and not trying to make them responsible. All this does is create the notion that you don't have to be responsible if you don't want to cause those who are will take care of you and your own. It takes away the motivation to become responsible. If you put your hands in the fire and get burned, while you do it again? Will you put your hand in the fire if you are told you will get burned and shown proof of it before you do it?"


I think this is where the straw man emerges as a stereotype of the poor. Children of "welfare" parents are still our children. We have cut welfare, transitioned to welfare to work, and still squak about somebody, in this case, a child, getting something for nothing. The people who are not "responsible" are rare from my experience in the field. Your suggestion regarding motivation is pop psych at its worst. No one can "make" anyone anything. We can reason, cajole, or threaten, but in the end, a person is or is not responsible. However they are is irrelevent to the child of that person as regards our responsibility as a society to care for each other.

Andrew teaches: What is that supposed to mean: "outside of the parameters of social responsibility"? I can form any sentence and add that statement and the result would mean nothing: I am opposed to any way "outside of the parameters of social responsibility". (I can then include whatever war I do support in "social responsibility".)

That is a case of the no real Scotsman fallacy, a change of definitions in the middle of the statement. Tell me one or the other: Is there a demand that others pay or is there not?

Sodaiho: Of course we pay. We all pay. Its part of our obligation as a community. I do see how this question fits the logical fallacy you point to. It is not a change in the definition at al, but a understand of the definition itself. A No Real Scotsman fallacy is about the applicable truths of statements. This case is about individual versus social responsibility. I am taking the side of social responsibilty to a child, the author of the article, the responsibility of the child's parent. We cannot look at this argument as an either or: both are responsible. Moreover, you seem to think you do not have a social contract with your fellow citizens. I do.

Be well.
Be well.

"If you are in business as many conservatives are, it certainly helps on your tax returns to have donations to 501c3s."

For every dollar you donate, you get, at most, .30 cents off your taxes. Same with mortgage interest, medical expenses, etc. It doesn't help you to do them, but if you do them they pretend you didn't earn the money.

I don't get the connection there.

Sorry, I tend to confuse people sometimes. What I meant was the responsible person does not take blame for their responsibilities, they always look for someone else to blame. Kinda like when people blame the gun makers for murders.

I think this is where the straw man emerges as a stereotype of the poor. Children of "welfare" parents are still our children. We have cut welfare, transitioned to welfare to work, and still squak about somebody, in this case, a child, getting something for nothing. The people who are not "responsible" are rare from my experience in the field. Your suggestion regarding motivation is pop psych at its worst. No one can "make" anyone anything. We can reason, cajole, or threaten, but in the end, a person is or is not responsible. However they are is irrelevent to the child of that person as regards our responsibility as a society to care for each other.

Hey, I won't take your right away to think what you want, doesn't make you right though. As I stated above:

I do believe all children should have healthcare, after all they are our future.

Don't try to make it seem as if somehow we don't care. What bothers me is those parents who have the balls to claim the Govt wont help them when they are not ever trying to help themselves. That little thing about "no one can make anyone anything" is a load of crap, otherwise why would we have schools? This is not about molding the irresponsible as if it was required by law, this is about not taking away what can motivate people into becoming responsible. By telling people we will give you money if you are not working you are basically telling people you don't have to work and you still get paid, sure probably not better than a job but hell, you're not even working.

If we gonna go by your idea why do we even have people who work under $15 an hour? Why not just give everyone who can't make more than $15 an hour, for what ever reason it may be (Be it physically impaired, just not smart enough, too lazy, satisfied with what they make, poor), a welfare check and just have them sitting at home doing nothing. After all, these people are considered poor (I should know cause thats what people tell me) and poor people don't pay taxes.