| | Tibor:
You imply, in your article, that those who had no decision in creating more children are to be held accountable for what they don't do re the needs of the children created by those careless-enough about such. Big Faux-Pas. I don't know the name of the logical fallacy involved, but, I'm sure there's one for your implied argument.
I barely got through 2/3rds of your article and knew that I didn't have to read the replies before making mine. I know whereof I speak. Read my 'profile' re 'the children' (especially the 'disabled' ones' implications.)
You say:
"...and quite a few [parents...presumably 'biological'] proceed to rely on the government to provide the children with their basic necessities..."
"When the children depend on the state, withdrawing the government-provided services does not deprive parents, but rather their children, of what they need to flourish [can we just stick to 'survive' here?] in life. And children have nothing to do with getting themselves into this kind of fix, since they rely on others to furnish them with what they need to live.
All too true. Ergo, besides the careless 'parents', the govt-bureacracy ALSO 'owes' an obligation to *the children*. They set up the govt-commitment of the 'rely on' prob here; *they* are the ones to hold 'accountable' (by voters) to "fix" it...without using the IRS-power on others. If they can't do it, the moral buck doesn't automatically pass to all other citizens.
You continue:
"My reason for raising this problem..." Uh-h-h-h..."this problem"? Problem...for whom? Indeed, I'm unclear on what you really exactly mean by "this problem". You mean "the problem of how to guarantee that all children existing within the geographical confines of a given 'state' will survive and flourish into rational adults"? THAT ...'problem'? Or, to rephrase, that "No child will be 'left behind' in their needs of caretaking, learning, surviving, and flourishing"?
I repeat: Problem...for whom? Decision-makers or 'the children'? The latter, agreed; we ALL got problems, both, as adults, and as children. The former, again agreed...except about what decisions they should be allowed to make re the rest of us non-Decision-makers.
I do not find it a 'moral' problem for me (and don't understand your implication as to why the rest of us should see it so for us). --- It is a wish-oriented 'concern', yes; a 'problem', no. It may be a demographic prob for sociologically-oriented politicians (or, the group's complement); an empathic prob for those who don't have enough children they're already committed to raising; an ethical problem for those who believe that some 'owe' energy/effort/time to helping unknown/anonymous/random unfortunates. --- Such is irrelevent to me...and...I do believe, most others.
Unfortunately, I see (unlike most of your articles) no clear 'argument' in this article of yours, so much as an innuended implication that only hints at an empathic-oriented one.
"Withdrawing funds" from the bureaucracy-created commitments is not to hold the voters accountable for hurting poor, deprived, dependent kids. It's to expect the 'system' to operate functionally, and, to remember, that there's NO 'guarantees' in life...even for kids...no matter what 'we', as a govt, may 'fiat.' --- I'm already too aware of this (raising a 'severe' Down syndrome child with limited physical ability, I have no probs re 1-using all govt-funding usable and 2-being/voting against all govt-funding of such; others don't 'owe' him, or me in my helping him, for...ANYthing...via IRS-enforced govt-funding--and you can bet his 'needs' have already used up some 'tax' money!)
You conclude with:
"Still, here is a matter that needs a solution that can also be made to fly with the general public; otherwise, we are left with a powerful excuse and great pressure to give up on liberty." I repeat: a 'solution' (as in 'guaranteed'?)...by WHOM? Who's 'we'?
LLAP
J:D
|
|
