Does responsibility curve outwardly in favor of the less fortunate?

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

What one person/couple does is their business. You can not control how a person reproduces, as it's none of your goddamn business. Whether they're poor or rich, intelligent or stupid - whatever - it's none of your business.

Would you apply that to incestous couples too?

Anyway, I think there has to be some responsibility when it comes to having a child. I think as far as financially being able to raise a kid, they need the basics, a roof over their head, warm clothes, nutritious food, and as far as the other things they need, an important one would be nurturing parents to guide them through life, well, until they turn 18 that is, and then it's anybody's game. If you can't pay, don't play!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Maybe Japan could start importing kids. There's lots of orphans or kids out there up for adoption.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

But by making ends meet, they still met the financial and other obligations that the kids needed, yea? Anyway, about your story, I think the state was right to tie up that uncaring horn dog. If she doesn't want to pay, then she shouldn't play! Kids aren't like...candy? (Mmm, candy). I don't know a good blip to put in there, but you don't just make kids like a Ford rolling off the factory line...or something. If someone has a better analogy, feel free to trump that lame ass one I just tried to do. Yea...

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Maybe they could've thrown her in a jail/prison instead for child abuse and neglect?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?