Matlack
Scribe
- Dec 15, 2008
- 8,558
In theory, I agree with you - a child should be the responsibility of the parent, not the State.
However, in practice, where do you draw the line with helping out a kid that wouldn't otherwise have a chance in life so that they'll lift themselves up out of the kind of poverty and squalor that they'd otherwise be condemned to by dint of birth to shitty parents?
I watch the kids in my son's school, or the ones I worked with in Scouts, and it's informative. By and large, the ones with decent parents who are having their needs met are decent kids. The ones with crappy parents who don't meet their child's basic needs are squirrely. One of my son's classmates is hyperactive and crazy all the time, but this little girl is typically given a two liter of Pepsi and a (full size) bag of Doritos for lunch. Of course she acts like a maniac when that's her diet. Honestly, I'd rather that the county spend a dollar a day feeding her decent food so she'll be a little more calm and act out a little less in class so that my son and the other kids have a better chance to learn because Ms. Dorito isn't jumping out of her chair every five minutes. Yes, we're spending money to correct the poor choices of her parents, but there's a net benefit there.
Likewise with feminine products. Take a little girl who either doesn't have a mom, or doesn't have one who cares or whatever. If she has to start missing a few days of school every month, she's going to be one of the ones who ends up pregnant and on public assistance for the rest of her life. Again, I'm fine with spending a few bucks here and there to at least give her a better shot at avoiding that future. It's not a guarantee, but there's a chance at the net benefit to society there, too.
Yay, let's all feel warm and fuzzy. Plenty of people have decided they didn't want to live that way and changed themselves for the better. What you are talking about is socialism. Pardon me if I dont agree.