In response to “Easy: Don’t Have Kids:” so now the poor aren’t allowed to have kids? So I suppose that, you “stood on my own two feet”, you had your children at home without subsidized …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
In response to “Easy: Don’t Have Kids:” so now the poor aren’t allowed to have kids? So I suppose that, you “stood on my own two feet”, you had your children at home without subsidized hospitals, that you homeschool them, that you never drove them anywhere on tax-funded roads and that you never intend to collect unemployment, should you lose your job. You were not publically educated and attended a private university. Seriously? And I suppose that these people who can’t afford children, never have to be affected by the needs of your children, nor are they to be disturbed by them in public.