Individual Responsibility and Family Values

I am writing in response to Linda Mills’ “Family Values, at Any Demographic” (Commentary, Oct. 9). Mills says, “Politicians . . . have passed legislation that prevents poor families from achieving the autonomy and cohesion they deserve. Paradoxically, this reform deprives poor families of the ability to rear their children within the family structure.”

Excuse me, but these are considerations that responsible parents make before having children, not after. One does not go about having children with the expectation that someone else is responsible for raising them.

Although spoken in a different context, Thomas Jefferson said that it is wrong for government to take the bread of one’s labor from his/her mouth. Obviously Mills disagrees. She apparently thinks that anyone can have children at any time, and that the rest of society should have bread taken from their children’s mouths to feed those other children.

Mills goes on to say that welfare should provide options, not moral judgments. It has been said by others far wiser than either Mills or myself that in order for democracy to work, society must be moral. Since she argues that it is not right for society to make moral judgments, then she must be arguing against democracy and society.

BRUCE CRAWFORD

Fountain Valley

* Apparently Mills’ mom did not have this talk with her, so this may be a shock. Ronnie didn’t “just happen.” She had sex. And then Ronnie “happened.” People who have sex must be aware that as a result of that activity, pregnancy frequently occurs.

The answer is yes to her question, “Are financial resources the only thing that distinguish welfare layabouts from stay-at-home moms?” She has financial resources because she planned and worked and achieved. Have sex and kids! To those who don’t have financial resources or the will to acquire them: Don’t have sex or kids!

This is, in fact, a moral judgment and is the only true welfare reform. The acquisition of financial resources most often has nothing whatsoever to do with “privilege” or “fortune.” It has much more to do with purpose, initiative and diligence.

A government that relieves society as a whole of its rightful burden of compassion and replaces true human compassion with bureaucratic giveaways effectively extinguishes not only actual compassion but self-reliance as well.

LARRY MINTON

Fullerton