>>>Even if one is not pro-choice, there is always adoption. If you know that you cannot afford to raise a child, what could be better for the child than to give it up for adoption to a couple who can afford to raise it? There are thousands of couples who cannot have children of their own that are waiting and hoping to adopt one and these couples can afford to give the child a good life. If one is pregnant and cannot afford to raise the child but keeps it anyway, this is a selfish decision and not in the best interests of the child.
>>
>>I have no problem giving the baby for adoption. That's a good choice. But if the parents wants to keep the child, I will also respect that. There's more than money involved in having a child.
>>
>>>This sounds like what got us into the current financial meltdown - everyone desrves to own their own home (even if they cannot afford it). People have to learn to be responsible enough to live within their means. This is even more important when one decides to have a child because that decision now affects two people instead of one.
>>
>>A TV with the other guy and now a house. We're talking about human beings, not things.
>>
>>I agree that having a child is not a decision that should be made without thinking. But letting a child go to school on an empty stomach just to punish the parents to have kept the child is not a good solution IMHO.
>
>It's not our responsibility to fill that child's stomach. It's the responsibility of the parent. Get a second job. Use your resources (family, friends). Get a third job. Beg. Borrow. Sell items you don't need. I don't freaking care. Don't expect a handout.

So you'd allow a child to starve because his or her parents are irresponsible. Think about that some more, Mike. What did that child do to deserve to starve?

Tamar