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?

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.

This would have left me out. I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

I think once a child has been born, we as a society have obligations to that child regardless of their parents' choices. I become very twitchy when the talk show types talk about cutting off aid to women who have many children because of poor life choices. The blood pressure starts to rise pretty high when they get on the topic of the welfare queen, a creature more mythical than the unicorn. I'd love to see them raise several children on what AFDC pays.

Regardless of any of that, our society will suffer if those children don't get adequate food and encouragement and support to stay in school. I'd be for a large investment in free contraception and education that teaches the costs and responsibilities of raising children. However, I'd also like it to be socially unacceptable to have large families and drive gas guzzlers.

I think once a child has been born, we as a society have obligations to that child regardless of their parents' choices. I become very twitchy when the talk show types talk about cutting off aid to women who have many children because of poor life choices.

That gets to me too, kids aren't just pieces of property. Not to mention that sometimes life situations just change, almost nobody can financially survive a unexpected job loss followed by a major health problem for instance.

I'm judgey about Clown Uterus Woman, but I'd be just as judgey if she were a lesbian separatist or a polygamous Mormon or married to a zillionaire with a staff of 14 nannies to hand (okay, maybe not quite as much with the last).

(Note also, I'm the elder sister with younger multiple brothers, who was raised by single (widowed) mother on public assistance, so I come by my judgey-ment by honest means and experience.)

That the delivery medical staff were astounded to learn that she already had 6 children speaks to her mindset, I'd say -- I expect that however she conceived there was also duplicity involved, or perhaps she went the black market fertility drug route.

I hope some news person (Rachel Maddow, I mean you) is having their staff make up a chart to track all the things Obama is reversing in his first 100 days.

My grandmother had 11 kids, and if anyone gets judgey about her, I will metaphorically and over the internet step on your face.

I don't think you should get a dog unless you expect to be able to provide basic care for it.

Maybe the dog gets sick, or you do. Or you have to move to a place without a decent vet. Or whatever. For some reason you can't provide for the dog as well as you'd expected. Life's unpredictable, and you made a reasonable decision at the time. No judging.

But if someone says, "I've always wanted a dog, and now I can afford one! I work 18 hour days, travel a lot, and live in a tiny studio apartment. I think I'll get a German Shepherd -- I don't know anything about them except that they're very cute!" I think society is entitled to respond, "Wow, that's a terrible idea."

I wouldn't want laws about minimal dog-ownership standards, but social censure is better at handling nuances than the law is.

I hope some news person (Rachel Maddow, I mean you) is having their staff make up a chart to track all the things Obama is reversing in his first 100 days.

I remember seeing a link to one of the political blogs (Pam Spaulding's, maybe?) that had a list of all of Obama's executive orders.

It was nice to see his labor EOs today, considering he still doesn't have a Labor Secretary confirmed.