Posted on 04/15/2012 6:04:43 PM PDT by evilrooster
"Can't Feed 'Em? Don' Breed 'Em" - - Wonkette.com April 15, 2010
Seems like sound advice to me.
Advice that even my liberal friends can agree with. I mean, isn't that what the "Pro-Choice" movement is all about? Allowing women a "choice" when a mistake is made, when that mistake rains on future plans or worse yet, when a woman cannot afford to support that mistake?
Strangely enough, liberals and conservatives can reach common ground. They just disagree on how to get there. Liberals are Pro-Choice, which affords one the opportunity to "fix" a mistake, while conservatives, for the most part, are Pro-Life, preferring abstinence instead. Liberals subscribe to the belief that government should provide for their contraceptive needs, while conservatives don't believe in funding protection against one's sexual exploits. At the core, however, remains the common belief that one should not breed children if one cannot afford children. As I said, sound advice even my liberal friends can agree with.
With that said, today's political climate would be so much more civil if we chose to focus on our common beliefs, and agree to disagree on methodology on how to achieve them. I suspect we could get a majority of both houses of congress to pledge support for a "Can't Feed "Em? Don't Breed 'Em" campaign. Not a bill promoting contraception or the advantages/disadvantages of abortion or abstinence, simply a campaign to get the message across - If you "Can't Feed 'Em, Don't Breed 'Em"!
How about it Harry? Instead of being seen as nothing but an obstructionist, you could unite both Republicans and Democrats alike around a common cause!
Now the debate turns to what should be done with those who have bred, but cannot or can no longer afford to care for their little ones.
"Mitt Romney Enlists In The War On Stay-At-Home-Moms (If They Are Poor And On Welfare)" - - Wonkette.com
Again, I implore my liberal friends to focus on common ground. Both sides of the aisle agree that government has a responsibility to provide a safety net to those less fortunate. They simply disagree on how to do so. Liberals believe in just throwing money at the problem while conservatives would require one to work in return for receipt of government assistance. One could argue that Liberals would perpetuate the problem by their "something for nothing" solution, while the conservative solution might provide a pathway out of poverty by providing the less fortunate the dignity of work that others enjoy.
Curiously, the conservative approach would spend more money on the problem by also funding daycare to provide for the ability to work, but that's not the point. The point, once again, is there is common ground among the two schools of thought. Why not just focus on common ground, instead of sniping at each other over how to get there?
Who knows, maybe civil debate on the issues may lead to a common solution. After all, Bill Clinton was a proponent for coming together around a common goal. In fact, he and the Republicans worked together to pass welfare reform in the 1990's. That seemed to work out pretty well...uhmmm...ohhhh...uh oh...he too preferred a work requirement!
Oh well, so much for that. Back to the partisan sniping!
Mitt's comments on the issue can be found here.
That sounds responsible.
The time to decide to NOT have kids is before they are conceived.
Both men and women are capable of saying no.
And both have that responsibility if they don’t want to have a child.
Your choice of language promotes the underlying premise of abortion. 1. That that women (mothers) are the only ones responsible for children appearing in the world. 2. The phrase "why bring a child into the world" suggests a unilateral and after the fact solution (abortion).
Also, as I stated above, a woman is NOT required by any law to support a child she "brings into the world". She can relinquish the child through adoption, or even anonymous drop off at a hospital, fire station, police station, etc. So the "can't afford a child" is not valid.
1) Woman has kid.
2) Grandma calls up Child Protective Services, informs them that the mother is unable to properly care for the child, says the child needs to be in foster care. CPS agrees.
3) Grandma agrees to be the foster parent for the child.
4) Grandma gets paid between $400 and $700 per month per child to be the foster parent. If she handles eight kids, then that's $67K per year, tax free, plus food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, Section 8 housing, etc. The rates may more than double if the child is deemed "medically fragile".
California has over 81,000 kids in foster care, at a cost of around (est average $500/mo times 81K) $486M per year.
Many in Republican circles support abortion because they presume that babies born into poverty would somehow cost tax dollars.
That’s the kind of anti-life attitude bred by slogans like the one in this article.
And yet men are.
Seems like murderous “pro-choicers” always miss one option: If you can’t feed your child, give him up for adoption. There are people going to China to adopt children because the system (and the law) make adoption in the US so onerous here. Change that and the problem disappears.
Put the child up for adoption - then leave the REAL parents alone to raise them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.