In response to:

The Problem With the Entitlement Attitude in One Video

lisakinva Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 5:53 PM
The caller was talking herself into circles, however the sentiment by these two clowns makes me want to spit nails. When you call someone irresponsible for having a child they "can't afford" -- you are essentially telling that person who finds themselves pregnant and in a difficult financial situation (which can happen in the MIDDLE of a pregnancy as often as before it), that their child should be aborted. According to the CDC, 49% of pregnancies are unplanned...instead of popping off about where this woman finds herself, show some empathy, and point her in a direction that his helpful, but perhaps that wouldn't be inflammatory enough.
restoreliberty Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 9:01 PM
not a child......six children

at what point is this woman child going to grow up and realize that she owes her children a decent life and that her neighbors don't (and the rest of the country) do not owe her or her SIX children anything

she has chosen to get pregnant repeatedly and after she was already on public assistence

I have no empathy for someone so reckless, irresponsible, and abusive to her children by not maturing and realizing that she owes her children some degree of responsibility. She is nothing more than parasitic scum and has set SIX children up for failure and a lifetime of destitution.
abowan Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:26 PM
There are so many people who want to adopt infants. Those two infants she just had could, right now, be living in a loving home with two parents who could afford their care.
lisakinva Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 7:28 PM
Sooo...now you are saying a married woman, who gets pregnant by her husband, and suddenly finds themselves without health insurance, should put her child(ren) up for adoption? Oh good grief, this gets better and better! It's like eugenics on steroids here... spouting the same sort of nonsense that the founders of planned parenthood did. What you are saying is that the poor don't deserve to have a family of their own. Historically, the poor have relied upon children to help them in their old age...families are what people have relied upon. I have yet to hear one person step up and say they would be willing to donate money to a charity that would help the poor, or any other Christian/conservative principles.
The Original Alice Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:09 PM
It might sound like they were saying for her to end her many pregnancies, but I'm betting they were wishing she had practiced effective birth control instead.

It is, in fact, possible to prevent a good number of pregnancies.
Just sayin'...
lisakinva Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:17 PM
Yes, but popping off about irresponsibility for getting pregnant, and assuming you know the circumstances is callous at minimum and elitist at worst.
lisakinva Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:17 PM
Yes, but popping off about irresponsibility for getting pregnant, and assuming you know the circumstances is callous at minimum and elitist at worst.
Darkness Fish Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:27 PM
"Yes, but popping off about irresponsibility for getting pregnant, and assuming you know the circumstances is callous at minimum and elitist at worst."

And NEVER doing this for fear of being called "callous" or "elitist" is cowardly and perpetuates a moral hazard.
The Original Alice Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:30 PM
Why is it elitist to tell somebody that they wish they didn't have to pay for their 6 kids?

I guess I'm elitist too - but I am glad they if indeed the last 3 or 4 kids were "surprises" that the parents did carry them to full term. At least, I hope they didn't *plan* to have a slew of kids with the intention of my supporting them.
z Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:36 PM
"And NEVER doing this for fear of being called 'callous' or 'elitist' is cowardly and perpetuates a moral hazard."
______________________________________

I'm betting that's the most ignorant thing I'll read today...unless I ready any more threads at townhall.com.
lisakinva Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 7:31 PM
No, the elitist part is condemning the "bringing into the world" without an understanding of the situation. These men made an assumption, which speaks to an attitude of "knowing everything" without any facts. Is the woman misguided about the role of government, absolutely. Is she wrong about the need for people to care for one another? No. These individuals only serve to make the conservatives look pompous, uncaring and self-righteous.
lisakinva Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 7:38 PM
No...the moral hazard comes into play when we start assuming facts not in evidence. When we claim to be pro-life, and then turn around and blast people who are less fortunate for having a child in circumstances that are less than ideal...when we strive for principles of lower government, but are unwilling to help others get back on their feet. This economy is hitting a lot of people hard. Obamacare is forcing more people out of full-time employment (read about Red Lobster/Olive Garden), which will leave them uninsured.... there are bigger problems we need to solve. Railing against a social program, without looking for and creating solutions is no better moral choice than supporting government programs.
bobbit Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 11:09 PM
Lisa you have it all wrong. These guys should have the option of NOT contributing to the care of her children if that's their choice. People should take care of each other however they/we should not be forced to at the point of a "gun" by government.

The entire problem is that people now believe they can do whatever they want, like have six kids they cannot support, and they know Daddy Government will subsidize them for the good of the children. You don't have six kids by accident unless you're a complete moron. Meanwhile that money is stolen from someone who is responsible and given to one who is not. That is robbery.

Don't make excuses for her. Charity comes from the heart not from government.
Nana82 Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:08 PM
I grant that it's possible to be responsible, pregnant and in a bad financial situation...once.

Unplanned pregnancies nearly always are sime irresponsibility.

James____Tx Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:46 PM
Deal with the consequences regardless if it is an "accident". It is not government role to take care of your families "accidents".
restoreliberty Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 9:03 PM
SIX TIMES????? THAT IS PATHOLOGICAL ABUSE OF HER EXISTING CHILDREN AND SOCIETY. SHE SHOULD BE INVOLUNTARILY STERILIZED.

It takes a village....to pay for other people's "free" stuff."

H/T Jon Justice