LOL. Yes, I am not advocating infanticide.
Now, time to check YOUR assumptions. Are you, like liberals do, assuming that indiscriminate procreating activity is a given and not a variable subject to incentive?
No, I am a realist. The liberals are the ones who want to create the nanny state and offer "incentives" to change people's behaviors like raising the taxes on cigarettes to discourage smoking [and raising revenue], increasing taxes on gasoline to conserve fuel, or hatch up a scheme of cap and trade and carbon credits to fight against global warming.
One person's "incentive" is another person's club. Whether you or I like it or not, we are going to have unwed mothers. 68% of all black children and 45% of all Hispanic children are born out of wedlock. Half of all children in America today between the ages 0-5 are minorities. Those are the stubborn facts we must deal with along with the Dems who control both houses of Congress and may get the WH in 2008.
Yes, within the present system. But check the trends before and after AFDC was implemented.
Out of wedlock births were declining among blacks, family units were stronger, then the libs destroyed this trend.
Libs do a lot of things that follow this pattern:
1) A very small minority are in need of some program (11 yr olds needing birth control?) that will alleviate the consequences for their choices.
2) Libs institute a program that resolves these consequences, removing the negative incentive to not make those choices.
3) Libs are "surprised" at the increase in occurence of this behavior, and think that the problem was more widespread than it was.
4) Libs demand expansion of the program.
See the builtin assumptions? The problem is a given, and not caused by the "alleviating program"?