Posted on 03/06/2006 7:12:09 AM PST by FreedomSurge
or it can be free through the county... but adoption is NOT for everyone...
Exactly. Plus some people are childless NOT by choice...or circumstances were such that the window of opportunity to reproduce closed before getting the proverbial ducks in a row (to mix some metaphors!lol!)
"Too many good, productive people were tricked into pursuing their careers in the 70s and 80s rather than starting families."
Ohhhh nooooo! We were economically PRODUCTIVE! What were we THINKING? ;-D
What a stupid thing to say.
I shouldn't be allowed to vote because I am childless? Does that mean that 18 year olds aren't allowed to vote because they have yet to bear fruit? Do we "earn" the right to vote the day the baby is born? Or at conception?
Is my only value on this planet my ability to procreate? If I am childless - does that diminish my value to society?
Should nuns and preists not be allowed to vote - are they not valid humans?
Do welfare moms and men who spread their seeds throughout the world have more reason to vote than a law abiding, hard working, childless adult?
Have you thought this through?
I see you haven't.
RWOS PING --- Hey gals, you may find this interesting.
Of course. How would you otherwise explain Dennis Kucinich?
Today someone wants to take away my right to vote because of my choice.
So you see why I am defensive about the subject!
My wife has a 'relative' who is on "permanent" disability (claims he can't even lift his own kids, although he suddenly acquires those skills "out of state" on vacation). He just received a $3000 tax 'refund' (although HE doesn't pay in; the wife does, but not much)...thanks to those little 'tax deductions'.
And the "blue zones" are also against tax credit vouchers for the parents that wish to provide their children a private education.
Yeop, it's all the fault of those horrible childless pro-life couples forcing others to have an abortion that keep the price of adoption ridiculously high.
Wonderful logic there.....
Must be nice!
You're a nutcase.
"The childless shouldn't be allowed to vote. They have little interest in the future of the nation."
Cute. I guess I'll stop paying all those property taxes that support the schools, then. I'll withhold payment on that portion of my other taxes that go to things that support children, too.
What a stupid thing to say!
Simply having kids isn't enough. They must be educated and be reared preferably by two responsible parents, a mother and a father or else they add to ignorant disaffected masses who do not work or produce as it is.
Wait...priests are childless by reason of the requirements of the Roman Catholic Church.
So by your logic, they shouldn't vote either, right?
That's a pretty broad generalization.
I'm still waiting for the thank you note from the parents of the kids I'm putting through public school.
Uh, yeah, that's a pretty boneheaded comment there.
Do you really think that people who are childless have nothing else to contribute to society? We have little interest in the future of the nation??? Are you really that narrow-minded?
How dare you suggest marginalizing or invalidating the worth of certain people with a broad brush like that based on your own silly, self-centered opinions? You want to take away somebody's well-earned right to vote just because they're not exactly like you?
Just because you have children doesn't make you better than anybody else. Get over yourself and get a grip on reality.
A stronger argument against deliberately chosen childlessness is the intrinsically evil nature of artificial birth control. ABC is fundamentally unnatural, since its object is the nullification of the natural end of the reproductive system.
The timeless natural law argument against ABC was made very well in Humanae Vitae.
For this reason, the deliberate choice to exclude children from marriage is one of the grounds for declaring a marriage null in the Catholic Church.
I'm never going to have a hysterectomy, why should my taxes pay for medical studies that benefit gynocological medicine?
Childless adults pay taxes, but directly reap none of the tax advantages and services that come with having children. I think they're paying their own way.
George Washington Carver had no children. Was he a freeloader?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.