- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Happily. Because the most valuable thing in society is it's future generation.
And how does preventing a huge number of poor kids from being born detract from that? I'm not advocating the complete elimination of reproduction. :roll:
DarkWizard12 said:I wonder why you chose the word "encourage" then. There seems to be a "deeper" part in this. It's nice to see that you don't use the cover of "womens' choice". Please, tell me, what do you find to be "undesirable"? What do you think is ideal?
Having kids that you (or society) can't afford is undesirable.
DarkWizard12 said:Ok, not allowing fetuses to become children and to become adults. Does that make you feel better about the situation?
Yes?
DarkWizard12 said:So you would support the abortion of the next "Barak Obama"(to be born to poor parents of course) on the fact that some statistic says it is likely that he would become a "undesirable"?
You have no way of knowing in advance which child is going to be the next Barack Obama. All we have are statistics which indicate that the poor are more likely to drain society's resources.
DarkWizard12 said:Of course I do on principle , I'm just wondering why you don't. Isn't a society judged on how it treats it's worst-off citizens? Nice to see that your solution includes encouraging their "elimination".
I fully support anti-poverty social programs, so yes, I think a society is judged (to some degree) on how it treats its worst-off citizens. That doesn't mean we can't take prudent steps to limiting the number of worst-off citizens. On the contrary, it means that we'll have more resources to take care of the ones we do have, for less taxpayer money.