| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 3:05:34 AM | I've heard this all my life. I appericate it more and more everyday. It rings true more and more everyday. The USA Today has just been delivered, along with disturbing world hunger issues. In 2006 4.3 million children were born. Among Kids/Young Women 435,437 were born. Women 40 and older 112.432. The paper did not state the rate of births foe women between the ages 20-39.
As I read the number of births for the 15-19 year olds I couldn't help but think, How many of these kids actually have the resourse to raise these children? What quality of life is the parent going to be able to afford this child? How many other children does this parent have? 15 to 19. The only thing I can think of is without responsibility {money} to raise this child how is there any freedom?
I also can't help but think, I know the answer to that already. If the parent can not afford to raise their child they have the freedom to ask society to pay the way. I really do not like this train of thought, I feel sad it has to be a thought in my head. I feel sad that while I could never afford to bring a child in the world others have the freedom without responsibility to do just that.
Ok beat me up for being a hateful person now. Low rate and berate me. I guess I just had to vent. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 3:34:20 AM | No political candidate is going to make it if they are anything but positive about taking care of children. You will see a continuation of new social safety nets developed to care for kids paid for by the tax payer. As the public becomes more and more poor, they will turn to those pleasures that don’t cost much like having sex. That will result in more children and, of course, that will mean higher taxes.
I’m really not sure how to address this problem without being branded as ugly and hateful towards kids. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:27:20 AM | | Theres nothing wrong with needing help or offering help- so long as it is voluntary for both parties. Force me to pay for those who acted irresponsibly isn't freedom with responsibility- it's the destruction of freedom because of irresponsibility. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:37:11 AM | | Evolution cuts both ways. Eventually, responsibility will be bred out of the human race. The current situation favours the propagation of the least desirable genes. This is yet another example of the perverse nature of liberal, socialist policies. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:49:21 AM | All the time we hear people complain about why society should pay for other peoples stupidity. These same people don't want their taxes raised to pay for education. Then they complain about why kids turn out stupid.
Well, people do stupid things.
Living in a hurricane zone, a tornado zone, a flood prone area, or an earthquake zone, these could be called stupid. Signing a sub-prime mortgage agreement could be called stupid. Smoking and drinking could be called stupid. Teenagers having children could be called stupid. Running a good business into bankruptcy could be called stupid.
There are lots of stupid things people do and it all makes for one big stupid society.
Now, we can all live together here and support eachother despite our stupidity.
Or, we can all turn against eachother and look upon our neighbors as competitors. But that way, a few people will get rich and everybody else will go to hell. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 4:56:29 AM | My daughter (19) has a friend who was a straight A student in h.s. and very responsible, a nice girl. Also, a bit of a hottie, apparantly, because she became pregnant through her boyfriend and he, apparantly, got another girl pregnant just before Tiffany so both of his children were born at around the same time, quite the little stud.
This is in a small town in Oregon, most of the others went off to college, etc.
It just happens. It's not thought through. They could have aborted, but chose not to because of religious beliefs.........go figure..... but the point is, once it does happen, there is a child and two very young adults and it is society's responsibility to assist them for the sake of our children, not abandon them because the parents didnt have the foresight to think things through.
The cost of that to the taxpayer is about one week of war in Iraq.
At any rate, teenage pregnancies have been decreasing, not increasing, so it is less of a problem than it was. However, if you want to overturn Roe v. Wade, then open those pocketbooks........... | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:19:51 AM | I am a firm believer that all rights have responsibilities attached to them, and that they are not licenses to do whatever you chose without living up to those responsibilities.
If you live in a society that uses sex to sell products, then I think one has to also accept that there is a responsibility to ensure people do not wind up in situations where they have limited access to things like birth control and sex education - especially young people.
There really is no excuse for the conception of a child who isn't wanted by both parents, and by parents who have the capacity to give that child at least the basics to get a good start in life.
I know two young women, on a teen and the other in her early twenties, that were on a good track towards bettering themselves with education and jobs. Both became pregnant, accidentally, and kept their kids.
In each case, they've altered their future, and their child's future, by a failure to protect themselves against accidental pregnancy. Children were not something they were actively working to have, at the time. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 10:16:19 AM | Most of our social problems, poverty, crime, child abuse& neglect are directly
or indirectly related to people producing children they dont have the
resources, intellectual, material or emotional, to raise properly. | |
|
| |
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 10:36:26 AM |
It just happens. It's not thought through. They could have aborted, but chose not to because of religious beliefs.........go figure..... but the point is, once it does happen, there is a child and two very young adults and it is society's responsibility to assist them for the sake of our children, not abandon them because the parents didnt have the foresight to think things through.
It seems to me that it is the responsibility of the parents of the breeding teens and not that of society to bankroll the cost of raising these babies. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 10:49:54 AM | I think you need to take another look at the figures. Remember you are a country with approx 350,000,000 people and 435,437 is only 10% of the total births (although thats high I think you'll find it is dwarfed by the UK percentage figures).
I think as a nation you can afford this and the alternatives aren't very attractive. Despite the things I dislike about your nation it is still a good society and even if it does come out of your pockets to look after these children that's better than not looking after them. Education try and keep the figures down but you'll never ever stop it altogether. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 12:19:34 PM | If a society doesn't look after everyone that lives inside it, even those who make mistakes, it can't last long.
And to me it isn't freedom and responsibility that are linked, it's authority and responsibility.
Which means the people complaining about 'those damn kids' and suggesting they be cut loose are abrogating their responsibility. The complainers are saying 'I'm withholding any support to people whose lifestyle and decisions I disagree with, exercising my authority over them.' But they aren't saying 'I accept the responsibility for the consequences of withholding that support.'
After all, the complainers are saying the kids born to these people should suffer for the mistakes the kid's parents made. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 12:24:30 PM |
After all, the complainers are saying the kids born to these people should suffer for the mistakes the kid's parents made.
I agree entirely. I have no problem holding an adult responsible for their mistakes, but I can never turn my back on a needy child just because their parents made some bad decisions. Even with the adults, I could not just let them starve to death in the streets even if they made some horendous decisions. It just doesn't seem right to me. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 12:41:33 PM | How to lie with statistics.
Or at least to mislead
The stats that you quote from USA Today are WORLDWIDE numbers. All the posts so far have been focusing on USA and/or western countries and their approach to the problem.
Have you ever lived in a third world country? It is so totally different from how we live. Children are an asset, even when born to young women. Families and communities CARE for their future, CARE for their children. And many of those economies function without money (barter).
So, please don't equate responsibility with money.
Or youth with irresponsibility.
Unless you phrase the question and quote statistics for only Western societies. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 1:32:51 PM |
complainers are saying the kids born to these people should suffer for the mistakes the kid's parents made
The kids born to these people do suffer for the mistakes of their parents. Children who are not born into stable, loving families with parents who are willing and capable of taking care of them have many disadvantages in life. Promoting irresponsible procreation exacts a terrible cost on children, society and the parents themselves. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 2:13:16 PM |
t just happens. It's not thought through.
Humm, no it does not just happen.
They could have aborted, but chose not to because of religious beliefs.........go figure.....
What I will never understand about this thinking is, doesn't the same religious beliefs suggest you not get pregnant out of wedlock?
There is no action with out responsibility, every action has its consequences, good or bad or indifferent.
And we as a society ( in the USA) are paying the consequences of allowing the media to dictate our morals and ethics for us. So since we seemed to have decided that we cant do anything about what is influencing our kids, helping these kids who are having kids is the thing to do. And we are doing a poor job at that!
You know there really is nothing wrong with waiting untill you are out of highschool and in a nice relationship and go through the stages and build up to haveing your first experience with sex, or your last experience come to think of it! lol | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 3:57:41 PM | Currently, there is a 5-year lifetime maximum on the program we know as "welfare" or TANF. Thats it.
A country like France offers access to health care for everyone, an aide to come in to help the pregnant mom, and free day care to poor, middle class and rich alike.
Of course, the French take care of their own. Here in America, of course, if you aint got the money, then **** you.
the Land of the Free, ya, right. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:33:58 PM | | Let me get this straight ? The parents of these "children" that are getting pregnant are not at fault ?and the Parents get upset because their "children" are out doing things they should notbe doing ? This is what Parents are supposed to be controlling. If your 15 to 18 year old "Child" get's pregnant it's your fault for bad parenting. Adults need to grow up and stop passing the blame on society when the problem starts at home. You may place the arguement that you can't watch them all the time but how many parents these days watch , teach , and direct their "children" these days. Don't ever try to tell me that your "child" got pregnant and then try to blame it on something else.It's the parents responsibility to instill proper control and discipline in a child. If they learn that they will not get pregnant at 15 period. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:36:41 PM | How to lie with statistics.
Or at least to mislead
The stats that you quote from USA Today are WORLDWIDE numbers.
(post 14)
Those are stats for the U.S. not the world. There are over 100 million children born worldwide each year | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 7:23:59 PM |
A country like France offers access to health care for everyone, an aide to come in to help the pregnant mom, and free day care to poor, middle class and rich alike.
Yes and they tax their citizens so much and regulate the economy to such a degree that their economy quite literally is in the toilet, with virtually no growth. If you pay people not to work, they won't.
Crime, murder, poverty, etc...all skyrocketed in America when social programs were made more and more extensive.
Of course, the French take care of their own. Here in America, of course, if you aint got the money, then **** you.
the Land of the Free, ya, right.
Yes, the land of the FREE. Not the land of the secure. Security comes at the expense of freedom. If you want security, you need a big welfare state and a big, powerful, instrusive government to be your mommy and administer it. And just like a mother with her child/children, your freedoms get restrained as well. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 7:32:45 PM | engineman - most european countries have decent welfare systems and we're actually doing pretty well as far as growth is concerned.
And do you really think you are the land of the free? with bush and the patriot act? if you want security you don't need a big welfare state you need a big army and a big police force. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/9/2008 9:04:51 PM | engineman - most european countries have decent welfare systems and we're actually doing pretty well as far as growth is concerned.
The level of unemployment and economic growth the United States experienced throughout its worst recession since the Great Depression, the Volcker Recession, were pretty much identical to what is "normal" for Europe today. The economic growth in Europe is only very so-so; in comparison to the rest of the world, it is much better, because so much of the world is poor, but it could be a lot better.
The United Kingdom is a bit of an exception, as they are not exactly "Europe" so-to-speak; much of the economic growth of the U.K. is because of the free-market reforms Margaret Thatcher pushed through and her decreasing the power of the coal unions.
The welfare systems of Europe are struggling just to fund their operations; this will get even more difficult as the European baby boomers retire. The UK itself is experiencing problems with this in its nationalized healthcare.
And do you really think you are the land of the free? with bush and the patriot act? if you want security you don't need a big welfare state you need a big army and a big police force.
In comparison to a country like France, most definitely. The State in France wields an enormous degree of power that would be considered unheard of in the United States.
And Bush and the Patriot Act haven't violated anyone's freedoms. As a matter of fact, Bush has probably enhanced and protected people's freedoms through his lowering taxes and keeping government out of the economy (unlike the Clintons before him who tried to nationalize 16% of the economy), and not ratifying Kyoto (which would have put a bunch of UN inspectors all throughout U.S. industry and hamstringed the economy completely).
In comparison though, what about Britain and the "Labour" party there which seems intent to stick cameras all over London to monitor everyone. | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/10/2008 6:05:18 AM | engineman - unemployment in the US is averaging about 5%, as far as I know which compared to "Europe" as a whole is about average and over the last 2 decades your unemployment figures dwarfed Europe's. Admittedly though over the last year or so during this recent "recession" countries in Europe are below par, France in particular is struggling.
however, economic growth figures are misleading. In Europe including the UK we are looking at the three - E's model which is seeking a balance between economy, environment and the community. (I don't know why they call it the three E's). Anyway, the benefits to the environment and the community are very hard to measure but they do have a value.There is a strong emphasis on sustainability and I doubt your figures take any of this into consideration.
A lot of people go on about this "big brother" watching us on CCTV but it is a ridiculous concept. For a start cameras, mainly, are only good after the fact, after a crime is committed then somebody will look at the cameras. To think that somebody is sitting in front of a lot of TV screens spying on us sort of defeats the object of CCTV in the first place. (unfortunately - I feel the need to add this for the less intelligent people on this forum - yes people do sit and watch them especially on Saturday night outside pubs!) They are there to save money, what would then be the point in employing - security guards or police just to sit there to watch us? and remember in London there are 7 million people so realistically you would need probably at least 500,000 - 1,000,000 people just sitting in front of the cameras to watch what we are doing. So I don't think they take away freedoms and I don't think they are spying on us.
I still don't see your connection between security and the welfare state?
as for the national healthcare systems struggling? not really accurate, a lot are very badly managed and all opposition parties will constantly tell you that. The press always highlights the things that go wrong or fail. but overall I can't see this, as for the baby boomers retiring these are old issues and again what do you expect to happen? how's it going to put a strain on the healthcare? the arguments over here are usually all these people will suddenly be relying on the NHS when they turn 65. it's not true and it's not realistic. nobody has ever been able to point me in the direction of any figures that show the over 65's will eventually outnumber the under 40's.
and Margaret Thatcher didn't remove power from the coal miners she removed power from everybody - there was no policy purely against miners it went against every union.
why did you put the labour party in quotations "labour"?
anyway this is all off thread so sorry to the OP. back on thread - sterilize everybody when they reach the age of 12 and you won't have this problem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| Freedom without Responsibility
Posted: 5/10/2008 6:58:07 AM | """A country like France offers access to health care for everyone, an aide to come in to help the pregnant mom, and free day care to poor, middle class and rich alike."""
I dont see how that relates to unemployment. More access means more people EMPLOYED in health care, aides mean EMPLOYED people, and day care means EMPLOYED people, too. It's the government that signs the paycheck.
And they use taxes? Yes, but whom do you think WE employ with a $600 billion dollar defense budget, arent those taxes, too? And dont we EMPLOY huge segments of the defense industry here as well?
I'd rather see my taxes spent $16 million for day care for kids and parents than one, single missle.
Any day. | |
|
Home
login 
