• Hacksaw
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I literally said I think the welfare of children should be supported by the state. A just society takes care of it’s children/future.

    As to “the costs” that whole argument is laughable. First child support services are not a significant portion of the budget in any modern country. The biggest slice is education, maybe you want to argue against educating kids too. Then if that’s not enough, investing in children and families LITERALLY BRINGS IN MORE MONEY THAN NOT. Healthy well educated kids become far more productive adults that bring in far more taxes than was spent on them.

    Next, contrary to your claim, literally no one is proposing any such “regulation” unless you think your post constitutes a regulation let alone a regulatory framework sufficient to enact such a ridiculous dystopian policy.

    This brings me to the last point, since nothing you have proposed or referred to even remotely approaches “regulation” you have NO basis for your claim that 99% of couples would be able to have at least 2 children.

    In the US alone more than 10% of Americans have used illegal drugs in the last month and a quarter of those (almost 3% of the population, have a drug disorder)

    More than 40% of Americans drink in excess, 5% of Americans have an alcohol use disorder.

    https://www.addictiongroup.org/addiction/statistics/

    The current poverty rate in the US is over 12%

    https://time.com/6320076/american-poverty-levels-state-by-state/

    I don’t know what your definition of “too poor” and “unfit” are, but no reasonable definition would allow 99% of Americans to have children.

    If you’re not in a modern country that isn’t America the numbers may be somewhat better in large part due to the state supporting it’s citizens, especially it’s children. Which again, is whatI advocate for.