The reality also is that we are not going to be able to legislature social norms which have changed over the years. There are many more un-traditional families (single moms, etc.) now than 60 years ago. We can take steps in welfare programs that effectively "pay" for socially responsible behavior if we follow the model of some European countries (like providing milestone payments to families where the second parent stays in the household if they are on public assistance while not cutting the assistance given to the mother plus kids for the father being there). The bottom line is that we cannot abandon the children in lower income households; there is actually a need to increase public assistance to them but we need to improve oversight to ensure the benefits (food, etc.) are reaching the children and not being misappropriated by the parent(s)/guardian(s). My wife teaches kindergarten - there are too many stories of poor kids coming to school after not being fed at home after the single parent trades the EBT benefits for alcohol, etc. The educators do the best to help these neglected children get free breakfast/lunch at school and sends them home with backpacks with food over weekends. The issue in many cases is that the parent(s) totally neglect the children, not even showing up for parent conferences - nor caring for the other needs of the children (clothes, grooming, etc.). The entire situation is sad.
BTW you re showing pictures of families that live better than 90% of the people on the face of the earth. Why.. in that last picture the family has so many appliances they keep the spare ones on the front lawn.
Just out of curiosity, why does it have to be either abort to save money or give birth and then support the child with welfare? Why can't the focus be on contraception?
I agree that there should be a focus on contraception. But keep in mind if you want to prevent teen pregnancies you will need to provide sex education in high schools and probably provide free contraception to students. This brings up all sort of issues regarding parents who object to sex ed and parents who want direct oversight over contraception given to their children (keeping in mind that most teens simply won't use contraception if their parents must be informed).
Yeah,lets depend on republican charity to feed and house millions of hungry children,lets depend on republican charity to pay the medical and medication cost of the elderly etc.Republican charity is less than a drop in the bucket to what is needed to care for children who parents cant care for them idiot.
It's not even that bad. Reminds me of my childhood. In any case, we should just cut the bullshit and come to consensus that we've agreed as a society that we are ok w/killing babies until they touch base outside the womb. You can sell it as women's rights but 90% of abortions are a matter of convenience. It's inconvenient for the mother who wants to keep partying, wants to pursue a career, wants to avoid raising a child alone, wants to not have a crying, crapping lump of flesh anchoring her at home. You can force a mother to have a child, but you can't force her to love the child. You can punish her and put her in jail for not attending to the kid, but you can't force people do what they don't want to do. If you want to save the babies, then you better be ok w/paying up, because the expectation that the parents are going to be there when they don't want the kid is just delusional. Want to scare the right into pro-choice? Threaten them w/taxes. And the left should face up to the hypocrisy; if they're ok w/abortion, then they better be ok w/gender selective abortion, and at some point hetero-selective abortion. "Oh, you're telling me it's ok for a woman to do what she wants w/her body but if I put down this puppy that's becoming a nuisance yet it's my property protected under the 5th amendment I'm some sort of monster?"