Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (2059)	3/11/2002 8:08:37 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

When a poor woman contemplates producing a child, the message should not be "you poor dear, here's some medical insurance" but something closer to "what the hell is the matter with you having a child when you can barely take care of yourself." Here, I agree to some extent. If bad sh*t happens to the poor and they have no way of responding, and could not reasonably have made provision, then certainly help. That's emergency stuff; effectively, provision of otherwise unaffordable insurance. OTOH having a child is - or should be! - neither unplanned nor unexpected... and it's a matter of choice: if you choose to take it on, when you can't support it, expect no additional help. With rights come responsibilities, and all that. Of course, for this approach contraception (and if needed, abortion) must be available... I'm presuming even the most RWET, Moral 'Majority' type would not actually expect the poor to be either celibate or sterilised? But, what if a family suddenly loses breadwinner (divorce, say, or just redundancy): what then? Do they have to have sufficient individual insurance to cover this - or does this burden go on the employer - or do the children get removed? There's no easy answer, if you don't have univesral provision...