There are kids in the USA much less the rest of the world that do not have food, shelter, or medical attention. As the adults of the world should the children’s welfare be our first priority or not. It is certainly not our top priority today. It is not even a topic in the current political environment. What do you think?
2006-12-21 03:55:59 · 20 answers · asked by Brian 5 in Family & Relationships ➔ Other - Family & Relationships
Yes, we as adults are obliged in theory toward all children. Families break down, after all, and stepping in to help is part of what being human means.
2006-12-21 03:58:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is our obligation to do those things for children it is a difficult subject with many facets people acting irresponsibly and bringing children in the world and then there are the orphans of the world whether they are due to death or drugs, etc...
Whenever possible do something to help a child I have learned that emotional support is the best gift you can give a child be a mentor be a volunteer that spends time with children teaching them sports, crafts, you can read to them all those are wonderful gifts and are often better than money there are lots of organizations that support the basic needs of children you can donate cash to them as well as your time God Bless that was a very thoughtful question and I hope you can fulfill some child's life in a meaningful way
2006-12-21 12:05:43 · answer #2 · answered by jkfranklin 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We need to help all children. Things happen sometimes where families run into trouble supporting their kids such as losing a job etc. At the same time I believe that people need to move out of any ruts they are in. Education is the answer. Even if a family or just one child is temporarily supported the key is to make sure that they can all get an education so that later on they can support themselves.
As the saying goes: Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he will eat for a lifetime.
2006-12-21 12:03:59 · answer #3 · answered by The_answer_person 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think as humans we have a moral obligation to provide (as we are able) food, shelter and the basic needs to other humans. How far we take this obligation is up to each of us as individuals and what we can live with. I do think this topic is addressed some places, but maybe not in the main political arena. Certain celebrities are trying to shine a spotlight on this issue, as are certain organizations.
2006-12-21 12:09:53 · answer #4 · answered by Rvn 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a compassionate human being, I believe that every human has a right to food, shelter, and clothing. There are different degrees of being able to provide for yourself. A child does not have the resources, life experience or knowledge to care for themself. So, a bum that's a drunk and addicted to drugs and does not care to care for him/herself....I would still help them personally, but understand that it is not everyone's obligation to help this person.
A child is a different story because of the reasons I listed above. There is no right answer to this question but I generally believe that if everyone treated everyon with respect/how you would like to be treated, that most of the worlds problems would go away.
2006-12-21 12:01:06 · answer #5 · answered by dumpbullets 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you stole money from people who, as the result, can't provide for their children, then you must return that money before you do anything else.
On the other hand, if you didn't steal any money, then your moral obligation to provide for children is limited to your own children.
The law does not define right and wrong. It only presents you with a threat if you do that which has been made "illegal." The extent to which the spectrum of right and wrong is congruent with the spectrum of legal and illegal is mostly coincidence. Laws get made by people with an interest in their effects, and that means you should never judge morality by a legal standard.
Your moral obligation to care for children applies only to your own children. Not to anyone else's children. Except that you must return to anyone whatever you stole from them, plus make good for whatever further harm your theft caused.
2006-12-21 12:30:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems like as humans, we should definitely give priority to ensuring that the world's children are cared for, or that their own families have the potential to care for them (by ensuring living wages for Americans, and enforcing fair labor standards abroad.)
The current political environment has little to do with our obligations to our fellow humans, and much much more to do with obligations to money.
2006-12-21 11:59:32 · answer #7 · answered by bcorran 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Helping your own is the most important. Not everyone in the world has the means to help all people of the world. However if just some percentage of the world can reach out in some way, just to help a little, can you image how much better the world would be?
2006-12-21 11:58:52 · answer #8 · answered by Kassi22 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It IS a topic in the political environment. The Clinton's health care plan would have solved at least part of the problem if it had been allowed to go through.
2006-12-21 11:58:27 · answer #9 · answered by MeanKitty 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is the responsibility of ALL adults to protect the innocence of childhood and yes, that means providing for their every need until they can provide for their own.
It should be natural but of course it is not. Even wild animals will take care of an abandoned offspring, even if it is not her own. Should be instinctual. At least, this is how I choose to view all children I come in contact with.
We should try to strive for this.
2006-12-21 12:00:03 · answer #10 · answered by Bathroom Graffiti 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋