it does not mean you are President. good lord, woman.

That Perkins. Give her an inch...

I KNOW, right?

Maybe she didn't read the part where you and I have taken up residence in the high-thrones of judginess. Or maybe she likes the disapproving glances.

Also on anyone continuing to have more kids by any means if they need government assistance to get by.

What if they have zero kids? Do people too poor to get by on their own lose their (moral) right to reproduce? (I understand you don't want to take away their legal right. Would that include not taking away either their government benefits or their children?)

yes, I think it is irresponsible to have children if you are not able to support yourself.

Or maybe she likes the disapproving glances.

You never know with Perkins. She's contrary like that.

::adjusts to more comfortable position on throne::

I get nervous with the "too poor to have more children" talk because some of the best parents I know struggle on a monthly basis financially. And if you have to be solvent, that's sort of making a rule where only the middle-class or rich are allowed to have babies. I'm not cool with that.

I'm more inclined to be judgmental about the tolls on the Earth. And that is not related to one's financial well-being, it's fully related to the Earth's.

I'm totally judgey about that woman. And many many other people. On a daily basis. ...as someone else said, that doesn't mean I think we should legislate against like, the number of embryos to be implanted, or whatever. That would be ridic.

Likewise, I am totally prochoice when it comes to abortion. Bring 'em on. Don't stand in my way, protestors! ...but that doesn't mean I'd necessarily get one, nor does it mean if you choose not to I think you're stupid. Or that if you choose to get a whole bunch of them, I'm not going to judge you and think "learn how to use the freakin' birth control perhaps?!?!". Ahem. ...I still think you should be ALLOWED.

Judgey McJudgerson, that's me!

I'm also uncomfortable with the financial arguments, on both sides of the coin. It's certainly Not Wise to bear and rear a child when you know going in that somebody will have to go hungry. But it's also Not Wise to limit childbearing and -rearing to people that know they'll be able to afford to pay for a college education.

Not to mention, Things Happen. Plenty of families had kids in the last few years, not knowing the economy would go bad and take their jobs away. It's hardly Wise to demand that they give up their kids.

And money isn't the only thing needed to care for a child. We're financially better able to handle child care expenses than a lot of people. But I know I don't have the patience to bring up kids. (I have enough trouble helping to babysit Hubs's brother's kids for a few hours.) So, no kids here. Just cats.

Which is why I'll be judgmental enough to say, "She's craxy" but not enough to say, "There oughta be a law."

There's a fairly large gap between, "I can feed my family without government aid" and "I can pay for a college education". Seriously.

And there's also a difference between a family needing to go on aid and that same family deciding to have more kids once they are on aid.

who suggested families give up their kids?! and who suggested laws?