Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Welfare-Reform Critics Were Wrong: What we know now
NRO ^ | 3/10/2003 | Robert Rector

Posted on 03/10/2003 7:52:57 PM PST by Utah Girl

Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D., N.Y.), apparently was in no mood to mince words that day in 1996 when he described the welfare-reform bill that had just been enacted by a Republican Congress and a Democratic president.

Requiring welfare recipients to work and limiting the length of time they could collect benefits added up to "the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction," he said. "Those involved will take this disgrace to their graves."

Moynihan was hardly alone. Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children's Defense Fund, proclaimed the legislation "an outrage … that will hurt and impoverish millions of American children." Her husband, Peter Edelman, then an assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services, resigned in protest and wrote an article for The Atlantic Monthly titled "The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done."

Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, said the law would "place 12.8 million people on welfare at risk of sinking further into poverty and homelessness," a charge echoed in numerous newspaper editorials.

So as Congress prepares to reauthorize the law, it's time to ask: How have these predictions fared?

Fortunately, not well at all. Census Bureau data show substantial declines in child poverty in the United States, especially among the two groups most affected by welfare reform: children of single mothers and black children.

The improvement in black child poverty has been dramatic. During the quarter century before welfare reform, black child-poverty rates remained essentially flat. In 1995, the last year before welfare reform, the rate was 41.5 percent. This was slightly higher than the rate was in 1971, when it stood at 40.4 percent

After welfare reform, the black child-poverty rate began dropping at a sharp and unprecedented rate, falling to 30 percent in 2001. Today, despite the sluggish economy, black child poverty is at the lowest level in national history.

The poverty rate for single-mother families shows a similar pattern. For more than two decades before welfare reform, we saw little net change. After reform, poverty fell among these families fell from 50.3 percent in 1995 to 39.8 percent in 2001. Even saddled with a recession, the poverty rate that year for children in single-mother families was at its lowest point in U.S. history.

What about child hunger? The Children's Defense Fund said welfare reform would "make children hungrier." Peter Edelman predicted more "malnutrition." Yet the numbers here have been cut roughly in half, with Agriculture Department data showing that in 1995, the year before welfare reform, 887,000 children were hungry; by 2001, the number had fallen to 467,000. That's still too many, but it's a far cry from what critics predicted.

Didn't any numbers go up? Sure — employment figures. And they went up the most among "disadvantaged" mothers. Employment for never-married mothers has jumped by nearly 50 percent since the mid-1990s. The number of single mothers with jobs but no high-school diploma has risen by two-thirds, while employment among young single mothers (between the ages of 18 and 24) has nearly doubled.

There's a simple explanation, some critics reply — the economy. Former welfare recipients naturally succeeded while it was improving. But while a strong economy undoubtedly helped, research shows that state welfare reform policies played a much larger role.

Indeed, a recent study, by Rebecca Blank, a former member of the Council of Economic Adviseors in the Clinton administration, shows a direct link between state welfare-reform policies and rising incomes among poor families. Blank found that s tates with welfare-reform programs that offered "strong work incentives" showed greater increases in the income of single parents with children than did states with weak work incentives.

Besides, similar economic expansions before 1996 did nothing to cut welfare rolls, and our current economic woes have slowed but not stopped the progress made by reform.

But that doesn't mean the current law is beyond improvement. Congress should strengthen federal work requirements; about half of the two million mothers who get a TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) check are idle, despite being able-bodied. Lawmakers also can strengthen marriage among the poor, which a wealth of social-science research proves is the best way to cut poverty among children and boost their well-being.

If lawmakers take this advice, expect to hear more hysterical predictions among the naysayers. And count on them being just as wrong.

— Robert Rector is a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: SauronOfMordor
Ah yes, the rosy wonderful pre-1960's (with certain aspects surgically removed from the rosy picture). Unilateral sanctioning, unjust/inequitable policies is is WHY you have to use the disclaimers you did about the pre-1960's.

Of course people who were never unequally treated by race or sex pre-1960's would love to return to those good old days where their group was NEVER shamed and sanctioned for the same act the "other" did with them. How genteel.

It is that exact attitude that brought the world tens of thousands of abandoned and left behind "Amerasian" children. Of course, neither having to watch the half-white kids suffer nor pay for the social havoc caused was the ideal situation wasn't it? Out of sight out of mind.
21 posted on 03/12/2003 11:38:50 AM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I believe a lot of the Amerasian kids were brought over to the US and adopted -- which was a better fate than awaited their all-asian neighbors when the forces of fairness, equality, and social justice finally took over in 'Nam

However much the "forces of fairness" may try to avoid it, whenever "fairness" and "equality" takes precedence over workability, the result is usually oppression, poverty, and bloodshed. "Fairness" and "Justice" got us the fire-fire combat zones that our inner cities have become, where young people have a higher chance of being murdered than in making it out to the middle-class

22 posted on 03/12/2003 12:22:31 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (Heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medication)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor; Lorianne
If a couple have a kid without either having the ability to adequately support it, let's put BOTH mom & dad up on meathooks and put the kid up for adoption.

There are times when I find this idea attractive, albeit bad and nasty.

I too am tired of paying huge amounts of my income to support the offspring of irresponsible parents. Their sex isn't an issue with me, but their irresponsibility sure is.

Of course, MY approach is to end all goobermint welfare entirely, and put it back on charity. I would also favor laws allowing children to opt out of families who treat them poorly. And laws making non-support of your child a crime.

Too radical, I suppose.

23 posted on 03/12/2003 1:24:10 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
Sure would be nice to go back to a time when having an illegitimate child was actually a stigma.
24 posted on 03/12/2003 1:26:45 PM PST by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Of course, MY approach is to end all goobermint welfare entirely, and put it back on charity. I would also favor laws allowing children to opt out of families who treat them poorly. And laws making non-support of your child a crime. Too radical, I suppose.

The only thing "too radical" about it is that the solution involves men. We've yet to try this practicle course of action because of the very mindset that created the problems to begin with. Or as one very smart person has already pointed out.....

"The problems that exist in the world today cannot be solved by the level of thinking that created them." _____Einstein

25 posted on 03/12/2003 2:07:23 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
Oh yes, those were lovely times. Particularly for children labeled as "bastards" and further stigmatized by not being entitled to the same rights as other children.

Actually if you long for those good old days, you can still have them. All you have to do is emmigrate to an Islamic theocracy such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, etc. (Too bad the Taliban is now on the run or you could have gone to live in Afghanistan and enjoyed the good life, living in a country which understood the value of unilateral sanctioning. Another good society down the tubes. So sad.)
26 posted on 03/12/2003 2:12:56 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
I'm not talking about labeling the children, just the parents. Shame is a powerful deterrent.
27 posted on 03/12/2003 2:13:45 PM PST by Xenalyte (I may not agree with your bumper sticker, but I'll defend to the death your right to stick it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
The only thing "too radical" about it is that the solution involves men.

I'm detecting some bitterness here.

Our laws and rules need some changing - I think we agree on that.

28 posted on 03/12/2003 2:24:02 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne; jimt
> "And laws making non-support of your child a crime. Too radical, I suppose."

The only thing "too radical" about it is that the solution involves men.

It sounds like you have "issues" regarding men.

In any event, failure to comply with a court order to pay child support WILL get you put in jail for contempt -- so jimt's suggestion is not too radical, because it is currently applied.

The big problem is when non-support is caused by the father not having any money, being in jail, or having gotten killed in a gang shootout. But asking women to be more selective about who they choose to father their kids is not something Lorianne is interested in

29 posted on 03/12/2003 2:43:06 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (Heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medication)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jimt
You're damn right I'm "bitter" (more like hopping mad). I read 4 articles in one month here ostensibly about "ending welfare" and curbing the cycle of poverty and none of them ever, not once, not even hinting, mention men.

We have to change more than our laws and rules. We have to change our entire mindset about solving these problems. I'm partial to the Conservative slogan "personal responsibility". However, I wish it actually had some meat behind it not just an empty slogan. I wish it were applied to everyone.
30 posted on 03/12/2003 2:48:26 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
The big problem is when non-support is caused by the father not having any money, being in jail, or having gotten killed in a gang shootout.

No the big problem is that they co-created a child when they are not willing or able to support it. You're looking after the fact again, with your typical boys will be boys shoulder shrugging strategy.

But asking women to be more selective about who they choose to father their kids is not something Lorianne is interested in.

That's a lie. I think women should be resonsible in their decision making. I reject your premise that such a recommendation ONLY applies to women. That's where you and I part company. I hold men equally responsible for not being more selective about who they choose to mother their kids and when to co-create them.

31 posted on 03/12/2003 2:59:55 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne; SauronOfMordor
I'm partial to the Conservative slogan "personal responsibility". However, I wish it actually had some meat behind it not just an empty slogan. I wish it were applied to everyone.

If it's not, it's meaningless.

Our current methods of enforcing personal responsibility are not very successful. I think that's what Sauron is getting at.

In my own situation of "child support" it has worked out well. I subsidized my ex to stay home with our child (mostly) at $1000 per month, and it's been a good investment. Since the age of 6, we have simply shared expenses, other than health insurance, which I pay.

It's been good for everybody. My ex isn't resentful and neither am I, and our daughter ends up getting way more spent on her, directly for her benefit, than if the goobermint imposed a percentage of income payment on me (or her). We each subsidize activities we initiate (ice skating lessons, equipment, dresses etc., about $300 a month for me) and jointly cover others (private school at $10K a year, clothing, etc.).

It works well enough that we're able to live next door to each other, providing my daughter easy access to either parent, and zero time wasted travelling between households.

I'd suggest it as what parents should try to do for their kids.

But how do we handle those (of either sex) who don't give a damn and are irresponsible?

32 posted on 03/12/2003 3:12:47 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Well yours is a model. May I suggest that we promote your model as the ideal arrangement. Celebrate it and publicize it. Make a big fuss about it an popularize it.

Right now what we "support" through our attitudes (such as Sauron's) is that males are NOT expected to act as you have toward their child. Why should they, it was not the man's fault the child was born (under the conceptualization of responsibility noted in these articles which OMIT mentioning men at all). The very premise of these articles on welfare "reform" is that children are the sole responsibility of their mothers. Period. End of discussion. (Anyone who mentions fathers will presumably be shot).

That is 180 degrees different than the model your situation projects. Your situation presumes as a baseline premise that the father is not only providing monetary support, he is actually physically THERE ... present and accounted for and involved in the child's life. He's not invisible, he's not surgically cut out of the family picture.

Your situation is so radically different than the premise supported in these articles on welfare "reform" where fathers are not even mentioned, not even hinted at. In fact one could interpolate from reading these articles that children on welfare arrived by parthenogenesis so thoroughly is the father excised from discussion on the cycle of poverty/crime etc.

And then you go on to read other articles about how damaging it is for children to grow up in "single parent" homes. These articles also go out of their way to either never, or hardly ever, mention men/fathers.

What I think many Conservatives don't realize when we pass around the manless fatherless articles that claim success in welfare "reform" is that they are unwittingly suppporting a liberal/socialist agenda of abortion and increased taxes for social spending down the line. It's really just sweeping issues under the rug to be dealt with at a later date. And as Sauron has suggested, many would then likely deal with them in ends-justify-the-means fashion once they reach critical mass.

Threatening to pull the rug out on social services and calling it "reform" is not enough if you are still (unwittingly) supporting the basic premises behind it, ie that society can pick up the tab later on (crime, drugs, illiteracy, cycle continueing) for the defaulted responsibility of adults. Or that we can solve these problems down the line by extreme anti-Constitutional measure which undermine our entire system of government.

33 posted on 03/12/2003 3:49:27 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Threatening to pull the rug out on social services and calling it "reform" is not enough if you are still (unwittingly) supporting the basic premises behind it, ie that society can pick up the tab later on (crime, drugs, illiteracy, cycle continueing) for the defaulted responsibility of adults. Or that we can solve these problems down the line by extreme anti-Constitutional measure which undermine our entire system of government.

You raise many good points in your post - I;m only citing part of your comments here.

But the question remains - what do we do about irresponsible scumbags?

My wife is dealing with a situation today that angers me. She has a child in her class who's severely mentally retarded. Don't think I'm suggesting such a child is deserving abortion or euthanasia = I'm not. But in this case the "mother" is not caring for the child - she's filthy, not trained in simple social behavior, is disruptive in school - in short she's an utter pain in the ass.

The "mother", I won't call her a woman, has had EIGHT children, by different fathers, all of whom are defective one way or another. The kids are retarded, blind, lame - you name it. The one my wife is dealing with has an IQ of about 25. She exhibits violent behavior. She's filthy (dirty clothes, dirty body, mossy teeth) and hasn't the slightest clue as to behavior that will make her acceptable to others.

This is where I get into trouble. I have two visceral reactions. One is that people should be free. The other is that irresponsible animals who push these unwanted and unsupported children upon us should be spayed and neutered. Obviously the latter is harsh - and NOT libertarian.

What do we do with people like this? I'm torn.

34 posted on 03/12/2003 5:50:26 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Threatening to pull the rug out on social services and calling it "reform" is not enough if you are still (unwittingly) supporting the basic premises behind it, ie that society can pick up the tab later on (crime, drugs, illiteracy, cycle continueing) for the defaulted responsibility of adults.

So what viable, workable solution do you propose? Continuing the welfare status-quo won't work -- up until the caps imposed in welfare reform, the welfare-class was breeding itself ever-larger. Eventually you exhaust the ability of the society to support the unproductive and criminal. All I'm seeing from you is a rejection of proposed solutions, without any workable plan of your own.

Are you a social worker, by any chance? Your operating basis is the classic approach of a bureaucrat defending her area as everything continues to crash down around her.

35 posted on 03/12/2003 7:05:03 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (Heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medication)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jimt
This is where I get into trouble. I have two visceral reactions. One is that people should be free. The other is that irresponsible animals who push these unwanted and unsupported children upon us should be spayed and neutered. Obviously the latter is harsh - and NOT libertarian.

The problem comes from people being allowed to impose the costs of their behavior on those around them. As long as the people around them feel obligated to clean up the messes of the professional victims, the professional victims have no incentive to change.

The problem grows until each person in the taxpaying-class feels like the mythical Atlas, condemned to support the weight of the world on his shoulders, carrying the loads of increasing numbers of others until his strength is exhausted, but feeling obligated to continue to support the load just a little bit longer

So what solution is there for Atlas? There is only one: to shrug -- to support his own load, and let the mess-makers deal with their own consequences.

The big change in welfare over prior methods of charity, is that private charity providers had the right to apply a price tag to the charity, to demand something in return for getting the victims out of their mess, namely to demand that the mess-makers CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR as a condition for getting help. Once you eliminate that crucial aspect, things fall apart

36 posted on 03/12/2003 7:19:38 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (Heavily armed, easily bored, and off my medication)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jimt; SauronOfMordor
You and Sauron asked similar questions, basically what is my plan. Here's what I would do.

1. Promote personal responsibility for everyone. Talk about it all the time, insist on it. Promote media and other mass marketed value systems which support the same. Don't support anything which even hints at one person being more responsible for another for the consequences of a mutual act.

2. I would accept as a baseline that irresponsible people were probably raised by other irresponsible people. The question then becomes how to break the chain. Some adults can be reached through propaganda and changing the entire tone on personal responsibility. But this will take too much time to bet on it helping stop the cycle. Bush's Marriage Initiative falls into this category. Good idea in principle, and I think it will help a certain percentage of adults begin to make more responsible decisions, but it just isn't going to do enough, fast enough, to stop the cyvle from continueing. I'd keep these programs, but I wouldn't bank on them.

3. Invest heavily in children. Children are the next wave of the cycle. This is where you can have the most effect. I would continue programs like Head Start which give kids a good foundation in nutrition and learning ability. I would model other programs like it to older kids. One of the key features I think is to get kids out of their customary envirionments. So I would implement things like camps where children are totally removed from their corrosive environments for say 2 weeks at middle school gradually up to 4-6 weeks for high school age kids. I might even consider PAYING older so called "at risk" kids to pariticapte. Send them far away from their environments, to Montana or something. Just to get a different perspective and see people from different walks of life doing different things from their parents and the people they normally associate with. This alone would do a world of good (I like the plan for "national service" based on the same principle).

4. Get rid of mandatory public education after completion of 8th grade. Instead, offer to PAY kids to attend vocational/techinical schools, as long as they finish the program. For example, have a 2 year vocational program and if the kid finishes he/she gets $5,000 (actual numbers could be worked out later). Eliminate income tax until age 21. All money earned is theirs. If they save money, government matches funds, say $.33 on every dollar, until age 21. The purpose of all this is to get kids interested in and used to making money and saving money.

5. Continue and expand tax incentives for married persons. Mortgage deduitions, etc.

6. Realize that there will always be some percentage of people who just will not meet their obligations to their kids or to society. Their kids should not have to pay for their intransigence ... invest in the kids anyway. Don't waste time holding the kids hostage in the hope that will coerce the parents to act responsibly. It won't, and you'll risk allowing another kid to become like the adult. At least by investing in the child, you have some hope of return on investment.

7. Pay now or pay later. What is a better use of tax money, paying for child intervention programs of paying to keep 1.7 million adults in prison (not to mention all the havoc caused by those out of prison)? To me the choice is clear.

37 posted on 03/13/2003 3:03:38 PM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne
Lorianne,

Your reply is detailed and clearly the product of long consideration. Some things I can agree with, but much I cannot - because it won't lead to our joint goals - personal responsibility and a decent evironment for kids.

Here's what I'd respond.

"1. Promote personal responsibility for everyone. Talk about it all the time, insist on it. Promote media and other mass marketed value systems which support the same. Don't support anything which even hints at one person being more responsible for another for the consequences of a mutual act. "

I'd agree.

"2. I would accept as a baseline that irresponsible people were probably raised by other irresponsible people. The question then becomes how to break the chain. Some adults can be reached through propaganda and changing the entire tone on personal responsibility. But this will take too much time to bet on it helping stop the cycle. Bush's Marriage Initiative falls into this category. Good idea in principle, and I think it will help a certain percentage of adults begin to make more responsible decisions, but it just isn't going to do enough, fast enough, to stop the cyvle from continueing. I'd keep these programs, but I wouldn't bank on them."

I'd agree.

"3. Invest heavily in children. Children are the next wave of the cycle. This is where you can have the most effect. I would continue programs like Head Start which give kids a good foundation in nutrition and learning ability. I would model other programs like it to older kids. One of the key features I think is to get kids out of their customary envirionments. So I would implement things like camps where children are totally removed from their corrosive environments for say 2 weeks at middle school gradually up to 4-6 weeks for high school age kids. I might even consider PAYING older so called "at risk" kids to pariticapte. Send them far away from their environments, to Montana or something. Just to get a different perspective and see people from different walks of life doing different things from their parents and the people they normally associate with. This alone would do a world of good (I like the plan for "national service" based on the same principle)."

Your ideas are good, but I disagree with how to achieve the ends. Private means will work, goobermint means are proven losers.

Head Start has proven to be useless in terms of results later on in the child's life. The reason is that the home environment of these kids is totally disgusting. Nothing will fix that except getting the kids out of the horrific environment they're afflicted with.

"4. Get rid of mandatory public education after completion of 8th grade. Instead, offer to PAY kids to attend vocational/techinical schools, as long as they finish the program. For example, have a 2 year vocational program and if the kid finishes he/she gets $5,000 (actual numbers could be worked out later). Eliminate income tax until age 21. All money earned is theirs. If they save money, government matches funds, say $.33 on every dollar, until age 21. The purpose of all this is to get kids interested in and used to making money and saving money. "

There are good ideas here, but a government implementation virtually dooms them to failure. We can do all these things privately, and make them successful.

"5. Continue and expand tax incentives for married persons. Mortgage deduitions, etc. "

No problems here.

"6. Realize that there will always be some percentage of people who just will not meet their obligations to their kids or to society. Their kids should not have to pay for their intransigence ... invest in the kids anyway. Don't waste time holding the kids hostage in the hope that will coerce the parents to act responsibly. It won't, and you'll risk allowing another kid to become like the adult. At least by investing in the child, you have some hope of return on investment. "

Simply, there has to be some punitive measures taken against "people who just will not meet their obligations to their kids". I want to put them in jail, strip them of parental rights, and adopt their kids out. I also want to criminally penalize them if they foster further kids after demonstrating irresponsibility, and no change of behavior.

I'd draw your attention to the welfare momma who, unmarried, has fostered EIGHT bastards who she not only can't support, she can't mother them either. My wife is dealing with one of her kids who's severely retarded, filthy, and very poorly cared for. The poor kid has mossy teeth, dirty clothes, bad behavior, and not much hope. This kind of "mother" belies the name. This "mother" needs to be penalized HEAVILY for any further reproduction. Obviously, any male involved in this needs to be heavily penalized also. BTW, EVERY one of her kids has some MAJOR significant problem.

I care about the kids and am willing to support (or as you say invest in) them. But further defective kids by this "mother" and her willing male partners needs to be stopped.

"7. Pay now or pay later. What is a better use of tax money, paying for child intervention programs of paying to keep 1.7 million adults in prison (not to mention all the havoc caused by those out of prison)? To me the choice is clear. "

On this issue I'm torn. On the issue of tax money, I say no. But PRIVATE money could be well spent as you suggest. A private group would require results, not just bureaucratically established compliance with rules. I have no problem spending money on prisons, but would like them to be more effective. An effort I'd support, with taxpayer money, is re-integrating these folks into the real world. It's a sink or swim transition now, and one I don't think is cost effective.

Of course if justice was based on restitution instead of retribution we'd do better.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. What do you think of my responses?

Regards,

jimt
38 posted on 03/13/2003 5:58:05 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne; tpaine; OWK; Lurker; SauronOfMordor
We cannot continue to let irresponsible people like I decscribe continue to produce bastards who need our support.

They hurt their kids, they hurt all of us. The "social costs" of uncared-for bastards are extreme.

I'm a Libertarian, so I can't support sterilization laws or mandatory abortions. Both would be anathema. The latter would be particularly horrific, as I believe abortion to be murder.

But people like the woman I describe, a welfare momma with EIGHT defective kids needing major help, cannot be allowed to reproduce at will. Neither can her male accomplices be allowed to wantonly impregnate her and abandon their resulting kids.

Just "taking care of the kids" will not suffice. Their behavior (the parents) is EVIL. They must be stopped.

The only Libertarian solution I can think of is to force them (conidering their aggression on us) to support their kids and to put them in a situation where they can't further aggress against us. (Read jail.) For fostering bastards IS an aggression, not mistake about it.

Another Libertarian alternative is to leave the children to their own devices. That seems immoral to me.

Your thoughts?

39 posted on 03/13/2003 7:33:14 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jimt
I'm opposed to making sexual reproduction itself a crime. I'd make the criminal aspect focus on the care of the kids. There should be minimum standards for care and support of kids. If the parents can't or won't meet those standards, they could be prosecuted for that, but not for making more kids.

In the case of the woman you mentioned with 8 kids, all being neglected, I would ask, why does society assume SHE and she alone is solely responsible for their care and support? I would file child negligence charges at the very least against her AND fathers of these kids. Apart from everything else amiss in your scenario, the de facto assumption that these kids are the sole responsibility of the mother has got to change. This assumption, in and of itself, is immoral, unjust and unfair ... to the woman and and to the children. IMO parents (both of them) have OBLIGATIONS to their kids. Not meeting these obligations should be legally actionable, for both parents, not just one. And I'm not just talking about sending a check. IMO a parent is obligated to the child in many ways, not just monetary support.

I agree it is awful negligent parents can continue to create more children. But the legal focus should be on meeting a standard of care and support, not whether they do or don't procreate. If we go down that road, criminalizing procreation, we're basically opening the door to mandated abortion and mandated sterilization which in the long run will hurt our entire system and everyone in it. We can't allow relatively few people to alter our Constitution.

But we can criminalize parental negligence without harming our Constitution.

I'm not opposed to paying people to be sterilized. The government in India is doing this with much success. We could either do it by government or by private means. But people aren't going to do this, paid or not, unless we get serious about making them meet their obligations to their offspring.
40 posted on 03/14/2003 11:15:40 AM PST by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson