F&B.  My idea of social contract prevents me from following you on this one.  I can understand the argument to NOT giving anyone any aid to raise kids.  However, making the jump to government ordered child removal because you've been deemed to not have the proper resources isn't something I can follow.

The state vs. the indvidual. The state vs. the (nuclear) family.  

That it is YOU that came up with this is in one respect outright amazing...... and then to tell you the truth ..... it isn't at all.   

What are the effects of a child who is raised by a young mother, who probably lacks education? If you take them early enough they will be nothing more then adopted and this works out positively in almost all cases, we can not say the same thing for children born to young, uneducated, mothers. Should   I be denied ordering my vehicle with  leather seats because I have to have more of my money confiscated by the federal tax code to support these people. I have a niece attending college right now that will pay back student loans, and then go to work to pay them back to then have  money removed from her paycheck to pay the tab for these irresponsible teens... My niece has done everything right and should not be penalized by the taxcode for doing so.... If she only got pregnant she would be living in an apartment instead of the dorm, cooking her own meals with groceries purchased by food stamps, with no medical care worries, day care provided and no college loan money to pay back? Why does she not do this.... Because she is my niece and is obviously a very responsible person. And we need more of her... She is not costing anyone of you anything or denying a child what it really needs.

Marilyn and F&B.  I understand that there are circumstances in which kids are taken away.

Not passing a government-run income matrix isn't one of them. 

And again.......I full well understand how we wish that those who can't afford kids wouldn't have them....and I understand that having taxes get diverted to these families would be a source of major teeth-gnashing by those whose wishes are not adhered to by the irresponsible.

However, this solution is abominable.  The Chinese think you are harsh! 

A family can't afford a newborn? a 2 year old? 5 year old? 12 year old?

What are the affect on the kids who get ripped away from their mothers?

- - -

Now we are obviously at a theoretical stage. And in all seriousness.....you aren't serious. But from a nuts-bolts standpoint, can you imagine the number of legal fights?

"Though I understand your frustration with those who can't afford kids having 'em anyway.....in the end, you are talking about taking people's babies away."

Do you realize that Social services can take away anyones kids for not providing for them, so there is nothing new here. You are an unfit parent if you cannot provied for  your kids. 

And it is YOU who is recommending a state-run program that breaks up an existing nuclear family.  We already have that service it is called many different things in many different states, they remove children from homes all the time. You do not have a constitutional right to have children but you do have a moral right to take care of those children.

Though I understand your frustration with those who can't afford kids having 'em anyway.....in the end, you are talking about taking people's babies away. 

And it is YOU who is recommending a state-run program that breaks up an existing nuclear family.  

- - -

Some would state that fundamentally our "purpose" is to procreate - - I wouldn't, but this thought isn't without significant historical backing. Certainly, we are talking about a basic function of humanity throughout its history: 1) having kids and 2) raising them. We are at the level of "natural" in this discussion.

What is really (freakin') interesting (to me) is the man-made, artificial....or if you prefer, "civilized"society YOU have created where having kids and raising them must now adhere to a standard where you must be qualified by the state to have a family.

Again.....I understand how you got this point.  But don't you think you might have made a wrong turn somewhere?

- - -

Didn't you ever read Brave New World?  If you have, don't your remember any of the themes.....particularly the main one?

Me or another poster WW.  

Nothing like those anti-war 60's tunes.

Good words,  Love my Pandora Radio on internet..... groovy.

Ahhhh.....the problems caused when efficacy meets democracy.....and you choose efficacy.

Plato loved what you wrote.

Come on  People now, smile on your brother, everyone get together try to love one another right now.right now...   Youngblood~ Get Together.

terrific song...

F&B,

       We as citizens have many good ideas, such as yours is. But try and get that by our political leaders. We need people who are going to be sticking up for us..Being someone that can relate to most people of ND I obviously think I am the better candidate. With a start of possibly 45 new members in Congress this year I think that we will be pressing many issues in the future, and come up with rational solutions. JUst look at what has been accomplished by our political leaders in Washington and see if we want to elect more of the same. If we do, we will only continue to see a decline in our govt...

Yes, I read that yesterday.   Minority births are out numbering white births.

Most like you say are obviously unwed and will be on our welfare system.

It happens in my own family too Fair.   I wish young girls would just get on the pill or be abstinent.

Pez dispensers... thats too wrong.